20200725-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B To COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry (Victoria) - Supplement 1

Page 1
1
2
3 COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry (Victoria) 25-7-2020
4 Commissioner Jennifer Coate AO & Tony Neal QC
5 Phone: 1800 005 010
6 Mail: PO Box 24012, Melbourne VIC 3001
7 Email contact@quarantineinquiry.vic.gov.au
8
9 SUBMISSION
10
11 20200725-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B to COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry (Victoria) –
12 supplement 1
13
14 Madam,
15 for the record this submission supplement is for public purposes and accepted as such.
16
17 In my original 24-7-2020 SUBMISSION I referred to the issue of “QUARANTINE” being a
18 federal legislative power and a Commonwealth of Australia responsibility when it comes to
19 persons arriving into Australia as well as people travelling interstate.
20
21 From spending decades at the bar-table assisting/representing in various capacities parties,
22 including lawyers, I am well aware that most politicians/lawyer/judges and others do not have a
23 clue what is constitutionally applicable.
24
25 Before any politician/lawyer/judge argues about “concurrent” legislative power’s the person
26 better learn what is constitutionally applicable, as set out below.
27
28 Hence, before any politician/lawyer/judge seek to rely upon “to incarcerate or otherwise hold a
29 person in a hotel for “QUARANTINE” like purposes then that politician/lawyer/judge better
30 gets a hold on what the true meaning and application of the constitution is about.
31 .
32 It is ordinary stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse, well when it comes to the ordinary
33 “citizen” but reality is that more than likely every politician/lawyer/judge is ignorant to the real
34 meaning and application of the law.
35 .
36 Politicians/lawyers/judges as well as most of the community are all so to say “brainwashed” that
37 States can exercise “concurrent” legislative powers and so everything is A OK> But reality is
38 that it is not so.
39 .
40 To give examples.
41 .
42 In 1948 the Commonwealth created the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 which
43 purports to give the Commonwealth legislative powers to define/decide “Australian citizenship”.
44 The truth is that this is an illusion. In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I challenged the constitutional
25-7-2020 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 validity of this legislation and doing so with a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

2 this became a clear legal issue. On 4 December 2020 the magistrates Court of Victoria at
3 Heidelberg exercising federal jurisdiction then (by consent of the parties) ordered that the
4 constitutional issues I had raised in my notice (including the issue of “citizenship” was to be
5 heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.
6 It is a matter of legal principle that when a party objects to the constitutional validity of any part
7 of legislation then this is ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio unless and until if ever at all a competent
8 court of jurisdiction declares it to be INTRA VIRUS. This the High Court of Australia since
9 2002 never did! Therefore the purported. The High Court of Australia has at occasions been
10 made aware of this 4 December 2020 court order but declined to hear and determine the issues
11 contained in the notice. Therefore, the issue of “Australian citizenship” being allegedly a
12 nationality is utter and sheer nonsense.
13 .
14 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention)
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
18 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
19 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
20 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
21 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
22 END QUOTE
23 .
24 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
27 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
28 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
29 [start page 2004]
30 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
31 END QUOTE
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
36 operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
37 citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
38 state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
39 citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
40 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
41 citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
42 citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
43 of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
44 But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
45 who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
46 expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
47 dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
48 Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision
49 and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
50 to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it,
51 the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
52 such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year
53 should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
54 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

55 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
56 Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
57 citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
Page 3
1 restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
2 disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
7 Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-
8 and who lives within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and
9 entitled to all its privileges, including the right to take part as the Commonwealth
10 provides in the framing of the laws.
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
23 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
24 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
25 capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
26 the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
27 trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
28 The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
29 Constitution.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
35 terms that are just to both.
36 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
37 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
38 required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
39 together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to
40 draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment,
41 which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
42 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters
43 that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Anyone who lawfully resides within the Commonwealth of Australia is therefore a
47 State/Territory “citizen” and by this AUTOMATICALLY an “Australian Citizen”. This has
48 absolutely nothing to do with nationality.
49 .
50 In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I canvassed this in considerable extent in both appeals set out in my
51 409 pages (written submissions) ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case
52 numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 where the Commonwealth and neither any State/Territory
53 Attorney-General didn’t contest any of the written submission and as such the appeals
54 succeeded.
Page 4
1 .
2 While in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 there is a provision for “AVERMENT”
3 However on 4 August 2005 I successfully challenged the constitutional validity of this to be used
4 in a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction (consider Kable NSW) and the Court ordered the
5 Commonwealth to file all and any “evidence” it sought to rely upon. On 19 July 2006 the Court
6 noted that the Commonwealth had not filed any material!
7 It is therefore clear that ongoing courts are convicting persons for “FAILING TO VOTE”
8 contrary to the successes of my appeals and also in blatant violation of their constitutional rights.
9
10 The ATO continues to use “AVERT” in litigation regardless it is unconstitutional to do so.
11 .
12 The only time the Commonwealth can use “AVERT”/”AVERMENT” in a State Court
13 exercising federal jurisdiction is when the relevant State Parliament specifically legislated for
14 this to be allowed. For example, Victoria did so regarding Bass Strait oil terminals.
15
16 And judicial officers exercising federal law such as the Family Law Act 1975 wouldn’t have a
17 clue that often they hear cases that are party or totally outside their jurisdiction powers.
18
19 French J of WA (Later French CJ of HCA) himself made very clear that regarding Subsection 51
20 (xxxvi) only provided the Commonwealth to “accept” any referral of legislative powers from any
21 State or States to the Commonwealth, however for the States(s) to do so the powers must be
22 found elsewhere in the constitution.
23
24 QUOTE
25 (xxxvi) matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision
26 until the Parliament otherwise provides;
27 (xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by
28 the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so
29 that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments
30 the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
31 END QUOTE
32
33 .
34 The States, such as Victoria, legislated the purported:
35 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986(Vic)
36 However, one has to find the source of legislative power for this in the Commonwealth of
37 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)!
38
39 The correct Section actually is:
40 QUOTE
41 123 Alteration of limits of States
42 The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the
43 Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the
44 electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish,
45 or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and
46 conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent,
47 make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase
48 or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State
49 affected.
50 END QUOTE
51 .
52 And I will explain why:
53
Page 5
1 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE
8 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
9 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
10 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
11 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
12 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
13 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
14 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
15 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
16 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
17 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
18 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
19 of the constitution.
20 END QUOTE
21
23 QUOTE
24 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
25 terms that are just to both.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
29 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
30
31 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
32 the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
33 restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
34 implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
35 Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
36 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
37 END QUOTE
38
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
43 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
44 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
45 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
46 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
47 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
48 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
52 National Australasian Convention)
53 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
54 It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be
55 obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
56 END QUOTE
57
Page 6
1 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

2 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
3 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
4 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
5 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
6 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
7 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
8 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
9 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
10 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
11 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
12 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
13 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
14 such authority.
15 END QUOTE
16
18 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
19 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
20 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 It ought to be understood that the Letters Patent published on 2 January 1901 enabled for the
24 Governor to establish a “impartial administration of justice”.
25 This is essential that the administration is beyond suspicion.
26
28 Australasian Convention),
29 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
30 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
31 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Politicians may desire to appoint their cronies to the Supreme Court of the relevant State and if
35 the Supreme Court fails to make a ruling to their decsire they may simply want to transfer
36 legislative power to the Commonwealth to undermine the Supreme Court judicial powers.
37
38 Because of the “separation of powers” the State Parliament cannot alter the Supreme Court
39 judicial powers unless and until if ever at all the electors of the State by majority vote approve to
40 amend the State constitution to diminish the judicial powers of the State Supreme Court.
41
42 Therefore Victoria legislative power was non-existent to refer any legislative powers to the
43 Commonwealth such as in :
44 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986(Vic)
45 without a State referendum to approve this.
46 After all no Parliament can deny a subsequent Parliament its legislative powers. Effectively to
47 refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth alter the jurisdictional power of the Supreme
48 Court.
49 It doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court can exercise federal jurisdiction as to do so there may be
50 federal requirements that may not exist previously under state legislative powers.
51 It is therefore clear that all and any state referral of legislative powers to the commonwealth is
52 and remain unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES unless approved by the relevant State
53 electors. Just that generally politicians/lawyers/judges do not have a clue about this.
54 But there is more to this “ignorance of the law” by politicians/lawyers/judges and others.
55

Page 7
1 We about daily are confronted by the term “infringement notice” where there is a purported
2 “Infringement court” just that the Framers of the Constitution embedded a legal principle in the
3 constitution:
4
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on
8 the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must
9 be heard.
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
11 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the
12 state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will
13 have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in
14 criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Infringements Courts clearly are dealing ex parte with matters and at times upon altered
18 Infringement notices without the accused being made aware of this.
19
20 But there is more to this.
21 .
22 The Commonwealth has the legislative powers as to “weight and measurements” and therefore
23 all and any traffic infringement camera, etc, must be certified by the Commonwealth before it
24 can be used in a court of law. Regretfully this is not understood by most
25 lawyers/judges/politicians.
26
27 I am aware that so to say politicians/lawyers/judges are screaming about “concurrent”
28 legislative powers and that to me shows the considerable defect in their
29 understanding/comprehension what the constitution is about.
30 .
31 Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was specifically designed to allow
32 “concurrent” legislative powers but only until the Commonwealth of Australia commenced to
33 legislate upon a certain subject matter listed in Section 51 of the constitution.
34 .
35 The High Court of Australia in Sydney Council v Commonwealth correctly determined that the
36 Council was exercising State delegated legislative powers as to Land Taxation, albeit held the
37 constitution prohibited the Council acting with delegated powers to apply taxation to the
38 commonwealth without its consent.
39 .
40 On 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to the Land Tax Office
41 (the forerunner of the ATO – Australian Taxation Office) and politicians/lawyers/judges never
42 realised that by this very legislation all municipal/shire council rates (known as delegated State
43 land taxation) as well as the States themselves no longer could raise State land taxation either
44 directly or by delegated powers.
45 While in 1952 the Act was to some extent amended, etc, however once the Commonwealth
46 legislate, irrespective if later it abolish all or part of the legislation, it remain exclusive
47 Commonwealth legislative powers.
48 .
49 Therefore, the State (neither councils seeking to exercise delegated State powers) lack any
50 constitutional legislative powers from the time the Commonwealth commences to legislate.
51
54 QUOTE
Page 8
1 Mr. BARTON.-No; I do not think that there is anything in the Bill that takes it away. Very well, then, if a
2 state law, or the action of the state, or the action of a citizen of a state, does not contravene Commonwealth
3 legislation under that power of legislation, granted in this Bill. the state law is still valid, and cannot be
4 touched or interfered with, and that I conceive is sufficient for the purpose of New South Wales under this
5 Constitution. Now, my honorable friend (Mr. Isaacs) yesterday, in that remarkably able and statesmanlike
6 speech which he made-one of the best speeches addressed to this Convention since it began its sittings in
7 Adelaide-mentioned state laws with regard to irrigation in the United States, especially state laws passed with
8 reference to the and country, and with reference to California. Now, while my honorable friend mentioned
9 those in support of his argument, all those instances are evidences that, under the operation of the trade and
10 commerce clause in America, the right is retained to the states, under the United States Constitution, to deal
11 with these matters, and is recognised by the courts. And if there were any doubt about that in our own' case,
12 we have only to refer to clause 99 of this Bill, which tells us that-
13
14 All powers which at the establishment of the Commonwealth are vested in the Parliaments of the
15 several colonies, and which are not by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the
16 Commonwealth, or withdrawn from the Parliaments of the several states, are reserved to, and shall
17 remain vested in, the Parliaments of the states respectively.
18 Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the reservation clause.

19 Mr. BARTON.-Yes, the reservation clause. Now, that clause has a twofold operation. It means, first, that
20 the power to deal with water conservation and irrigation, which, if you rely on sub-section (1) alone,
21 finds no mention in this Constitution, and, therefore, is not a power given to the Commonwealth, but a
22 power retained in the states absolutely. And it means, in addition to that, that the states will retain
23 their power of dealing with the navigation of their rivers, except so far as those rivers fall under the
24 domination-if you like to use that large word-of the legislation of the Commonwealth, when the
25 Commonwealth chooses to legislate on the subject of navigation. So that the position of the state is
26 secure as regards the conservation and use of its waters, except to the extent that there may be an
27 actual navigation law passed by the Commonwealth, which may have the effect of limiting the state use
28 of the water of the rivers within that state.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Reminded Section 100 is merely to preserve navigation of rivers!
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
36 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
40 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
41 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
42 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
43 cannot get behind it.
44 END QUOTE
45
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
49 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
50 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

51 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
52 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
53 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
54 END QUOTE
55
57 QUOTE
Page 9
1 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
2 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
3 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
4 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 As such, while the States were able to legislate as to “QUARANTINE” issues at the time of
8 federation exercising “concurrent” legislative powers, once the Commonwealth commenced to
9 legislate as to this issue then the States no longer could do so.
10 .
11 We often are told by the Prime Minister about a “National Cabinet” as if this is some kind of
12 constitutional legal power. It isn’t.
13 Our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) provides for a “responsible
14 Minister”
15
18 QUOTE
19 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What is the way to do it I am not now considering. But I hope I am not
20 misunderstood in calling attention to that difficulty as likely to arise. I believe myself that the system which
21 we call responsible government is the best that has yet been invented in the history of the world for carrying
22 on the good government of the people, and I hope that it will be instituted in the Federal Government of
23 Australia. But, at the same time, I desire to point out the great possibility-almost probability-that that
24 system, as we have it at the present time, if we insist upon members of the executive being members of
25 the legislature, and insist upon their commanding always a majority in one house of the legislature,
26 may not work. We have to devise a constitution that will work, that will have within its bounds sufficient
27 scope to allow of any development.
28 END QUOTE
29
31 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
32 . I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
33 and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
34 responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
35 view the formation of true responsible government.
36 END QUOTE
37 .
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. WISE.-You cannot impose exceptional treatment upon the citizens of another
41 state; that applies to everything.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
46 There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line
47 would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of
48 responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child
49 of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the
50 liberties of our people-then,
51 END QUOTE
52 .
54 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
55 We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to
56 say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough
57 to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the
Page 10
1 Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments.
2 Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in
3 order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the
4 Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-
5 that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one
6 legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible
12 government
13 END QUOTE
14 And
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
18 responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
19 END QUOTE
20 And
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
24 Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
25 provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
26 those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
27 END QUOTE
28 And
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
32 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
33 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
34 END QUOTE
35 .
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
39 END QUOTE
40
41 A “cabinet” is a group of Ministers debating government powers and when they implement it
42 and it goes wrong then the relevant “responsible Minister” can be hauled before the parliament to
43 be held accountable. This is the system in both the Commonwealth (Federal) and State
44 executive powers. There is no “National Parliament” and neither a “National constitution” for a
45 “National cabinet” to operate within. As such, the usage of the term “National Cabinet” means
46 that the politicians are acting and operating outside the rule of law not accountable to anyone!
47
49 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
50 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
51 that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
52 trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
53 clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
54 harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
55 too much care has not been exercised.
56 END QUOTE
57 .
Page 11
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
3 in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
4 make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
5 Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
6 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
7 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
8 for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
9 States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
10 Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
11 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
12 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given
13 to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
14 direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
15 there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
16 END QUOTE
17 .
18 Again:
20 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
21 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
22 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
23 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
24 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
25 Parliament."
26 END QUOTE
27 .
28
29 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
31 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
32 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
33 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
34 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
35 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
36 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
37 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
38 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
39 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
40 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
41 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
42 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
43 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
44 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
45 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
46 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
47 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
48 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
49 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
50 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
51 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
52 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
53 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
54 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
55 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
56 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
57 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
58 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
59 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
60 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to

Page 12
1 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
2 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
3 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
4 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
5 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
6 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
7 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
8 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 It must be clear that when it comes to interstate travellers and people coming into the
12 Commonwealth of Australia then they fall within strict Commonwealth legislative powers as to
13 “QUARANTINE” AND ALL PERSONS MUST BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME
14 REGIME.
15
16 QUOTE
17 117 Rights of residents in States
18 A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
19 in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would
20 not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
21 resident in such other State.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Neither the police nor the ADF (Australian defence Force) can be used to unilaterally force
25 persons to be restricted as our constitutional system is based upon the “impartial administration
26 of justice:”
27
28 The Courts may hold that the law might be good but not constitutionally/legally justified.
29 .
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
34 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
35 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
36 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
37 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
38 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
39 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
44 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
45 The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more
46 repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the
47 existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their knives
48 and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of
49 their own country, because we have no other enemies.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 We must never accept that the ADF is involved in law enforcement unless within Section 119
53 QUOTE
54 119 Protection of States from invasion and violence
55 The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and,
56 on the application of the Executive Government of the State,
Page 13
1 against domestic violence.

2 END QUOTE
3
4 A disease is not some kind of invasion and neither some kind of domestic violence (civil war).
5
6 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
9 Is it a Constitution which gives all reasonable and liberal guarantees of freedom? That can only be
10 answered in one way. Is it a Constitution the action of which, until amended by the people, is preserved and
11 safeguarded? There is only one answer to that. Is it a Constitution which the people themselves, by their
12 will expressed by their Parliament and themselves, are able to alter to suit their needs under conditions of
13 reasonable thought, without unreasonable difficulty? There can be no answer but one to. that question.
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
19 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
20 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
21 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
25 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
26 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
28 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
29 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
30 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
31 END QUOTE
32
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
36
37 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
38 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
39 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
40 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 We have had in violation of Section 117 of the constitution draconically laws that now give
44 preferences to citizens of the relevant state versus that of citizens of other states. While this
45 might have been something that was done in 1910 when no one bothered about constitutional
46 principles and legislative powers we cannot continue to do the wrong thing.
47 .
48 Much is claimed that it is all to save lives but reality is that it is not at all. Time and time again
49 nursing homes/age care facilities and hospitals are in the forefront of infections and deaths.
50
51 We constantly are given statements that the cause of infections cannot be traced, yet as for many
52 months I have been writing about the protective gear such as swabs, mask, gowns, etc, are often
53 found to be already infected upon delivery, as various countries reported.
54 No amount of locking in/up every citizen will stop the spread of any virus if you demand people
55 to use protective gear that is the source of the infections.
56

Page 14
1 For example, if you discover your fuel tank of your motor vehicle is empty due to a hole in the
2 tank, then no matter how much fuel you will put in the tank it will drain empty unless you fix the
3 very cause of the tank becoming empty – that is to fix the hole in the tank.
4 .
5 Likewise if protective gear that is infected is not properly tested before being used then you are
6 bound to cause medical and other personnel to become infected and then when they are working
7 in hospitals/care centres/nursing homes then you will cause people to develop problems that may
8 accelerate their deaths.
9 .
10 It is a world wide problem and it is beyond me that instead of the LOCKDOWNS common-sense
11 didn’t prevail to actually protect the vulnerable persons and let the healthy go on with their
12 normal daily lives. Wrecking the economy doesn’t advance any battle against any virus but
13 rather enhances that more people might die due to the harm inflicted in the process to destroy the
14 many years of hard work by people to build up a business and now see it all unilaterally
15 destroyed.
16 .
17 Within the context of our federal constitution the provision exist:
18 QUOTE Ss51(xxxi)
19 (xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or
20 person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has
21 power to make laws;
22 END QUOTE Ss51(xxxi)
23
24 Hence, as the States were created within s106 “subject to this constitution” then this legal
25 principle should apply to the States also. Destroying the hard work of many business people I
26 view constitute “acquisition” being it “implied acquisition”. The American court have ruled time
27 and time again that where the Government causes harm such as building a rail road causing
28 financial harm or otherwise to adjoining properties then it can be held liable for “adverse
29 acquisition”.
30
31 I will below quote the 8-4-2020 correspondence to Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman why I
32 view the police cannot restrict the rights of citizens as guaranteed in the constitution.
33 .
34 It contains references to the debates of the Framers of the Constitution regarding
35 “QUARANTINE” issues.
36 QUOTE
37 Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman 8-4-2020
38 Office and mailing address
39 Level 2, 570 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
40 ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au
41
42 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman
43
44 Madam,
45 by now you too may have been aware about the Victorian Police having issued a
46 $1,652.00 fine against Hunter Reynolds albeit this appears to have been withdrawn since.
47
48 My concern is that the State of Victoria or for that any state has no police powers to restrict
49 anyone from their legal and constitutional rights of freedom of movement.
50
51 Regretfully we lack too often competent politicians, lawyers and judges to
52 understand/comprehend this.
53 .
Page 15
1 I will below provide some quotations of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates for the
2 creation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of which within section
3 106 the states were created “subject to this constitution” and it should be clear that the Framers
4 of the Constitution stated:
5
6 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
7 Convention)
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
9
10 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
11 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
12 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 The Framers of the Constitution rejected that the States could invoke police powers
16
17 In 2001 I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in the federal political election but refused to vote. I
18 did so again in 2004 and in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated
19 the Commonwealth as to compulsory voting. I at times do vote when I consider there is a worthy
20 candidate to vote for, but my objection was against compulsory voting and the Court upheld both
21 appeals, which I conducted representing myself.
22
23 As such I proved in the past that to understand and comprehend what the constitution stands for
24 is critical.
25 .
26 We now have allegedly some 150 PSO to run around bothering people, etc, where I view none of
27 the States, including the State of Victoria can invoke any police powers. The mere fact that in
28 error and by misconception this nevertheless is pursued cannot justify it being done.
29 .
30 While I am aware that the issue of the Novel Coronavirus might be deemed serious this however
31 cannot and never must be deemed to be acceptable to act in violation of constitutional constrains.
32
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
37 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
38 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
39 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
40 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
41 END QUOTE
42 .
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
46 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
47 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
49 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 The powers of the Commonwealth is limited also as to actual persons infected and not some
53 general provision against anyone regardless if they are or are not infected.
54

Page 16
1 The Commonwealth is limited to enforce any legislation through the State Court and as such
2 cannot itself enforce legislative provisions which are without court sanction to do so where is it
3 disputed. My case AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006 underlined this.
4
5 I have below quotes the various parts of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates as to the
6 various manner in which the Framers of the Constitution debated the issue of “quarantine”.
7
8 It should be understood it is totally irrelevant what other countries may or may not do as they
9 may not have a constitution in the format as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
10 1900 (UK) provides for.
11
12 Let me be very clear about it my wife is 87 and recently (October 2019) was in hospital and
13 admitted to ICU with heart Failure, fluid in the lungs, etc, and so I am extremely concerned as to
14 the health and wellbeing. However, I realise that my concerns for my wife should never mean I
15 could ignore violations of constitutional rights of anyone. If we were to engage in that kind of
16 conduct politicians will always use some mantra to undermine citizens constitutional rights.
17 We have seen with the WMD (Weapons of mass Destruction) mantra how people was mass
18 murdered and without constitutional authority.
19
20 If we were to turn a blind eye to this issue of the Novel coronavirus then politicians and others
21 will likely build upon this to continue to undermine citizens constitutional rights. This we cannot
22 accept nor stand for!
23
24 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
25 National Australasian Convention)
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
28 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
29 of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
30 sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
31 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Many Australian soldiers have given their lives to protect the people of the Commonwealth of
35 Australia so they can enjoy the freedoms our constitution provides for.
36
37 The obligation is upon each and every persons, regardless of his/her political views, public
38 position, etc, as to ensure those soldiers death was not in vain and to be the sentries the Framers
39 of the Constitution alluded to.
40 .
41 We should not ignore that viruses have been going around from time to time and the gross
42 incompetence of Ministers of health to therefore fail to ensure that the State Health system is
43 ready cannot be used as some excuse to rob people of their constitutional rights.
44 .
45 Often there are claims that the State Health System may not cope with it all, yet then cruise ships
46 that could be converted to hospital ships are ordered to leave notably by Premiers who I view
47 constitutionally lack such powers.
48
49 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/andrew-p-napolitano/can-the-government-restrict-travel-
50 to-protect-public-health/
51 Can the Government Restrict Travel to Protect Public Health?
52 By Andrew P. Napolitano
Page 17
1 Judge Andrew Napolitano: Coronavirus fear lets government assault our freedom in violation of
2 Constitution
3 https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/goverment-restrict-public-health-judge-andrew-napolitano
4
5 I will not quote the entire statement as the links will enable you to do so.
6
7 Our constitutional system is based upon that the Commonwealth can charge a person of an
8 alleged crime before the State courts exercising federal jurisdiction and not otherwise. As such, it
9 cannot apply a general ban against ordinary citizens that they are not permitted to move about,
10 etc. Neither can the States do so as they lack the constitutional authority for this.
11
12 If indeed as many seem to suggest that the 5G system is causing the real problems of the Novel
13 Coronavirus (COVID-19) and yet neither the Commonwealth and/or the States are pursuing a
14 proper investigating about this then this too may underline that the politicians claim to care but
15 in reality ignore to show to do so.
16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y1NRNF3Sm0
17 They Do NOT Want You Seeing This! - 5G Death Towers Exposed
18
19 https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-04-06-5g-alter-hemoglobin-coronavirus-patients-oxygen-
20 deprivation.html
21 Can 5G exposure alter the structure and function of hemoglobin, causing coronavirus patients to die from oxygen deprivation?
22
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=P9dAN9VZdNQ&feature=emb_titlehttps://www.yout
24 ube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=P9dAN9VZdNQ&feature=emb_title
25 Former Vodafone boss blows whistle on 5G and COVID19. - YouTube
26 Former Vodafone boss blows whistle on weaponized 5G and COVID19. This keeps getting deleted so im re-
27 uploading it as the public deserve to hear it. It is a shorter version of the original as it ...
28
29 We have a constitution and must adhere to this no matter what as any violation is
30 unconstitutional and cannot be excused.
31 My constitutional rights and so of any citizen cannot be denied merely upon the wimps of
32 politicians. Again, with the WMD their mantra was for a pre-emptive strike where in reality
33 President Saddam Hussein was not even contemplating any attack from Iraq upon the
34 Commonwealth of Australia. Any citizen pursuing this kind of horrendous conduct to be
35 inflicted upon a fellow citizen more than likely would end up being convicted and spend the rest
36 of his life in prison confinement. Politicians somehow had, albeit wrongly, placed themselves
37 above the rule of law. This is why we need to stop this.
38
39 My wife as senior citizen have not been aware that any State of Federal Government by their so
40 called mandatory rules have provide any form of relief such as food parcels, etc. As such, they
41 have made life rather more contemplated. Surely if this was a real issue about health and safety
42 concerns and not just a political trick to invoke further unconstitutional powers under the guise
43 of being for the safety and wellbeing of citizens, then where are the facemask as they are freely
44 issued as I understand it in New Zealand? Why is there no emergency food supplies to the
45 elderly, the invalid and the carers?
46
47 With employees of various stores having been found to have contracted COVID-19 then this if
48 anything places at potential risk (of contamination of the products placed on the shelves) the very
49 elderly who are claimed to be first in line to shop at 7am. An ungodly hour for many.
50
51 I also noted that some supermarkets have empty shelves in the stores while one can order the
52 product via the internet from its website. As such, it appears there is a desire by supermarkets
Page 18
1 make a handsome profit in that manner. This while senior citizens and others struggling to get to
2 a supermarket are discovering a trip likely without the needed products on the shelves.
3
4 In my view if a person is infected and directed to isolate then I view this should be with that an
5 emergency food parcel is provided for the duration of the isolation and not as I understand
6 happens that an infected person then has to go shopping to get food for the period of isolation.
7
8 While the ruby Princess is in NSW nevertheless I view that it violates the Titanic Board of
9 Inquiry recommendations that one should never send any person life to be depending upon the
10 perils of the sea. As such where there is a cruise ship with sick people on board then I view any
11 state is required to ensure the person is first nursed to health before a ship can be ordered to leave
12 with such person.
13
14 Below are not all instances of references to the QUARANTINE issue but does reflect in general
15 what the Framers of the constitution debated about the issue.
16 While in general States are entitled to apply certain restrictions regarding quarantine of animals
17 it has no such powers when to comes to “man-kind” health issues such as COVID-19. And, the
18 ports are actually under federal control and as such it is not for a State Government to direct a
19 cruiseship to leave as it is within the realm of power of the Commonwealth.
20
21 In my view the State Government and the Victorian Police as well as the PSO’s should seize and
22 desist any further to enforce rules, etc, that are in violation of the constitutional compact and so
23 the rights of citizens.
24
26 Convention)
27 QUOTE Mr. FYSH:
28 Those who have been making the laws of their own colonies, and those whose businesses have compelled the
29 making of these laws, have felt the disadvantages of the incongruity of the bankruptcy acts, and,
30 domestically, we regard our marriage and divorce laws as great incongruities; and when we free our ports
31 there can be no doubt that the regulations as to the navigation of our fleets, and matters connected with our
32 quarantine ports, and various other subjects of that kind, must be a federal concern; but as to whether it may
33 be wise to be so self-contained in Australasia in connection with our judiciary system as not to permit an
34 appeal outside of Australasia must be a matter of which I trust the law officers which are so well representing
35 their respective colonies here will put clearly before the Convention.
36 END QUOTE
37
40 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
41 The appointment of the civil service it is proposed to vest in the governor-general-in-council. These
42 provisions introduce what we call responsible government-not necessarily party government, which is
43 another division of responsible government, but a government responsible in name and form to the
44 head of the state and in substance to the parliament of the commonwealth. It is proposed that its
45 executive authority shall be co-extensive with its legislative power. That follows as a matter of course. In
46 immediately starting the business of the commonwealth, it is provided that certain powers may be taken over
47 at once by the executive government of the commonwealth, namely, as to customs, excise, posts and
48 telegraphs, military and naval defence, ocean beacons and buoys and ocean lighthouses and lightships, and
49 quarantine. Other matters are left to be dealt with by the federal legislature from time to time as they may
50 think fit.
51 END QUOTE
52
54 Convention)4
55 QUOTE

Page 19
1 (2.) The government of any territory which may by surrender of any state or states and the acceptance of the
2 parliament become the seat of government of the [start page 702] commonwealth, and the exercise of like
3 authority over all places acquired by the commonwealth, with the consent of the parliament of the state in
4 which such places are situate, for the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, quarantine
5 stations, or for any other purposes of general concern;
6 END QUOTE
7
9 Convention)
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. THYNNE: I have nothing more to say with reference to the hon. member. With regard to my hon.
12 friend, Mr. Wrixon, another delegate from Victoria, we find that it has hitherto been almost the invariable
13 rule in Australian politics that distinguished statesmen who have left the colonies for a short time, on
14 business howsoever important, have found it necessary to undergo on their return some period of political
15 quarantine before returning to political power.
16 END QUOTE
17
20 QUOTE
21 Dr. QUICK to move:
22 That a return be laid before this Convention showing-
23 I. The present annual cost of maintaining the following services in each of the Australian
24 Colonies, viz.:-Quarantine, ocean beacons and buoys, ocean lighthouses and lightships.
25 II. The average annual cost of such services in each of the said colonies during the last ten
26 years.
27 END QUOTE
28
31 QUOTE
32 We must see that the new body has absolute control over the Customs and Excise duties and bounties. There
33 are other matters which I need not go into. There is defence and quarantine, and similar matters, which will
34 be placed under the Federal Government, and, in fact, we may say all matters relating to the external affairs,
35 internal commerce, defence, and general government can safely be placed in the hands of the new body, and
36 the States can retain all the other powers which they now possess.
37 END QUOTE
38
41 QUOTE Mr. HOLDER:
42 There are many matters which may be handed over with great advantage to the federal authority, such as
43 Customs and Excise, for instance. There are no subjects which have a broader or a more national interest than
44 these, and of all others these are the ones which we should first entrust to the care and control of the federal
45 authority. Defence, also, is a subject which must be vested in the Federation. Lighthouses, quarantine, and
46 matters relating to shipping regulations, are all subjects which will find their way naturally into the hands of
47 federal authority; but for the rest, let us keep within our own power all we possibly can.
48 END QUOTE
49
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. LYNE: If Mr. Holder's ideas were carried out you would hardly want either. I th ink he would hand
54 over the question of defence, the question of quarantine, and the question of a Federal Supreme Court.
55 END QUOTE
56
57
Page 20
1 QUOTE Sir PHILIP FYSH:

2 If you do anything more than proceed on the lines of the Convention of 1891 you must instruct your
3 Financial Committee that the expenditure in connection with the construction of the various fortifications
4 shall be taken over. You are also going to take over matters affecting quarantine and shipping. If we are
5 going to be the lighters of our maritime highways, a Federal Marine Board will be as absolutely necessary as
6 the existing Marine Boards of the various colonies. If we are going to take over the responsibility of lighting
7 the beacons and wharves, as was proposed in the Bill of 1891, you must give instructions to the Finance
8 Committee to make provision for taking over the cost of those lighthouses, etc. These works must be the
9 responsibility of the Federal Government, if it takes the revenues which are to be raised therefrom.
10 END QUOTE
11
14 QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST:
15 Then the Federal Parliament should have control of the postal and telegraph departments, though I am quite
16 certain that it would be all against the interests of Western Australia to have it so. Quarantine is a fit subject
17 for federal control, and so are harbors and lights, but at the same time I do not think the Central Government
18 would look after the lights on the various coasts half so well as the local Governments.
19 END QUOTE
20
23 QUOTE Mr. WALKER:
24 The first consideration undoubtedly is to be able to defend ourselves. On this point I
25 thoroughly agree that the total cost of defence, as well as quarantine, should be borne by
26 the federal authorities.
27 END QUOTE
28
31 QUOTE Mr. WALKER:
32 You will have to transfer to the Federal Government the cost of defences, quarantine, lighthouses, buoys,
33 and so forth, and also charge them with the interest on the cost of fortifications in all the colonies.
34 END QUOTE
35
38 QUOTE
39 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: That is practically the outcome of what they say. They also propose that the
40 Federal Government shall only have the control of defence, light- [start page 360] houses, quarantine
41 regulations, and ports and harbors bordering on the seacoast.
42 END QUOTE
43
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. BARTON: It would be a division which would hamper the Federal Government by the inconvenience
48 of the arrangement which would follow on their division. If we are to confine the Commonwealth to [start
49 page 377] a body which is to simply frame a Customs tariff, and to take charge of such matters as
50 quarantine, ocean lighthouses, and some little interference with buoys and beacons, it is a pity that the
51 States have gone to the expense-in one instance I believe of between £30,000 and £40,000-of holding the
52 election in order to be represented here. Let me not be unfair, because this very question brings me to the
53 question of the protection of the States. There is no one who holds more strongly than I do that it is necessary
54 to provide for the maintenance of the proper individuality of the States. Those who took part in the
55 Convention of 1891 can bear witness in that respect. I recognise the great difficulties there are in the way of
56 maintaining the full individuality of the States, and at the same time adhering to our well known form of
57 responsible government; but I believe that they can be surmounted, and that it would be a shame on us if we,
58 in the first instance, charged with the framing of our Constitution, did not make an effort to surmount them.
59 Recognising these difficulties, I believe that the States which happen to be the less populous, should be dealt
60 with liberally and generously. The State interests must be conserved, not only by safeguarding their full right
Page 21
1 to exercise all functions reserved to them, but by making the powers to be exercised by them so certain that
2 there can be no doubt, even if the matter is referred to the Supreme Court, about the clearness of the
3 definition.
4 Sir RICHARD BAKER: There is the danger of the powers overlapping.
5 Mr. BARTON: I am coming to that in a minute. We have not only to attempt to safeguard State rights by
6 placing provisions for that purpose in the Constitution, but we must also take great care to make the
7 machinery as fully applicable to the preservation of those interests which are erroneously called State rights
8 as if they also were set down in the bond. There have been cases of overlapping, as we find in the records of
9 the United States, and the reports of the Privy Council in the case of Canada. We know that there is constant
10 liability to overlapping; that when the federal body exercises its powers of legislation which are definitely
11 given to it, if the utmost care and the utmost precision are not exercised to confine the legislative operations
12 within the circle of the power given in the Constitution, there will be these cases of overlapping in the federal
13 law, which would constitute an encroachment upon the competency and individuality of the States. These
14 cases must arise, and they form one of the strongest arguments for a second Chamber in the Federation, and
15 for arming that Chamber with competent powers to prevent that overlapping. When such cases occur, you
16 have to call in the machinery of the Federal Court, and may be afterwards the machinery of the Privy
17 Council; but is it not better that there should be in the Constitution an element in the shape of a second
18 Chamber, which will do its utmost to try and keep these powers, which will keep legislation within
19 Constitutional limits, and prevent resort to authorities external to Parliament? That is one of the strongest
20 necessities it seems to me for a second Chamber. If the principle is not conceded that federal laws require the
21 assent of the people and the assent of the States, why is it that the most democratic amongst us concede two
22 Houses? I suppose there are some among us who will say that in a separate form of government, a
23 government not united or federated, they would get along very well with one Chamber instead of two. But
24 the most democratic-even if they are not representatives of this hospitable State in which we are now sitting,
25 South Australia, there are those of Tasmania, and others -who would urge this, that even if they might not be
26 reconciled to a second Chamber in their own colony as a separate State, they would not be reconciled to a
27 Federation without a second Chamber. Why is this, unless it be a recognition of the fact that the laws require
28 the assent of the people and also of the States? With [start page 378] a National Assembly as the sole
29 Chamber the clear tendency must be to engulf State interests. If you have the States Assembly alone with
30 equal representation, there would, I think, be a clear tendency to that kind of loose confederation in which the
31 Union would be dependent upon the States. If that were the priniciple of the Federation we should have
32 something very little better than the principle of even the Federal Council at Hobart or the abolished Articles
33 of Confederation of the United States. It is recognised that neither of these things will do; that you must have
34 two Chambers, one Chamber for the representation of national interests and the other Chamber for the
35 representation of State interests. If you depart from that principle you must be giving too great power to the
36 national interests or too great power to the State interests and the golden mean is reached by granting these
37 two Chambers. This is, of course, an elementary proposition; and the reason I refer to it I will make clear
38 enough. The reason is that if you have your body constituted in either of the ways I have spoken of, neither of
39 the conditions would make a Federation; and as we come here charged to make a Federal Constitution, we
40 cannot make a piece of legislative machinery of that kind. We must not make our legislative machinery so
41 that we shall have either unification on the one hand. or a confederacy on the other. Clearly, then, the
42 intention of two Houses is to make the principle a rule of daily governance. Though it might happen that such
43 necessity might not arise in more than a fractional part of the proceedings of the Commonwealth, still the
44 principle must be inserted as a rule of daily governance, because there will be no day on which the necessity
45 for the exercise of that principle might not arise. Then the mere concession of the principle of two Houses is
46 enough to show that one must rest on the basis of proportional population, the other on State entities. This is
47 the gist of the matter, that there are two different entities to be preserved. They are both necessary to
48 constitute a Federation. One unit is the individual citizen, and the other unit is the State entity. We are bound
49 to confess that both the individual citizen as represented in the National Assembly and the individual State as
50 represented in the States Council must have their powers, and you must provide so that in each case the
51 majority of the units shall prevail. I do say that you must so protect your Constitution that you will not have a
52 majority of citizens dominating the State interests, or the State interests dominating the national life; but it
53 must be so constituted that the interests they each represent are firmly embedded in the Constitution, and you
54 must leave the future to the evolution of those two legislative bodies, which command the respect of both
55 entities of the Federation, namely, the majority of the citizens, and the majority of the States. At the same
56 time attacks have been made in the course of debate by the representatives of both extremes.
57 END QUOTE
58
61 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:

Page 22
1 I have read over again and again the long list of powers with which this Commonwealth is to be invested; and
2 on each one of those, thirty-five in the fiftieth clause and four in the next, have asked myself in how many are
3 State interests likely to be involved, and how often? Members who read them will see that scarcely one of the
4 provisions, neither those with regard to tariff or navigation and shipping, or quarantine, or currency and
5 coinage and legal tender, are likely to be at all affected by the question whether an elector resides in a large
6 or a small State.
7 END QUOTE
8
11 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
12 With most of these things no one State is concerned with the management of the other, but there are certain
13 matters-such as defence, quarantine, and various other things-we generally agree upon, in which we as a
14 people say we are concerned, not as residents of Victoria, Tasmania, or any other colony, but because our
15 interests and our desires are united. We say there is henceforth to be no distinction between us; let us blot out
16 of our future history and out of our future politics the arbitrary fact that we are residents of different colonies,
17 and if we start with that and we select these subjects, it is on the distinct basis that our interests are identical.
18 If our interests are identical why do we have it continually thrown in our face that the diversity of State
19 interests in these matters is to be protected? We select these subjects on which we are agreed; there is by this
20 very hypothesis no diversity of interests in these matters, and the residuary powers are retained by the States.
21 As to these they have their State rights, and the federal authority cannot enter into the sphere one single inch.
22 It is outside the sphere of Federation altogether, but when we have selected these subjects on which our
23 interests are presumably identical the [start page 544] States, as such, have equally little claim to enter.
24 END QUOTE
25
28 QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON:
29 What would be the position [start page 571] in which the smaller States would be placed if we agree to this
30 amendment? What will be the privileges of the smaller States? They will have the privilege of being taxed at
31 the hands of the larger States. They will have the privilege of being represented by about twenty-five
32 members. as against fifty members on the other side. The smaller States will contribute at per head of their
33 population as much to the defences, to quarantine, and to all other departments which will be handed over to
34 the Central Parliament for control-and how else could they fairly contribute-but they only have a very small
35 voice in the control of how this money should be spent.
36 END QUOTE
37
40 QUOTE
41 II. The government of any territory which by the surrender of any State or States and the acceptance of the
42 Commonwealth becomes the seat of Government of the Commonwealth, and the exercise of like authority
43 over all places acquired by the Commonwealth, with the consent of the State in which such places are situate,
44 for the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, quarantine stations, or for any other purposes
45 of general concern:
46 END QUOTE
47
50 QUOTE The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN:
51 Then take the question of quarantine. That would appear to be a matter in which no question of local
52 interest could arise. But in a continent so huge as this island of Australia, where there is every variety of
53 climatic condition, even the question of quarantine may become a question in which the very existence
54 of a state is threatened. We have a tropical climate, we have a sub-tropical climate, and we have a temperate
55 climate. The northern portion of the island is tropical. A tropical disease may threaten Australia which we
56 know cannot obtain any footing in the eastern, southern, or western provinces. Protection against this disease
57 may be of insignificance to the larger populations, those living in the temperate climate to the south, but it
58 may be a question of the most vital importance, a question of the very existence of the population which may
59 ultimately gather on our northern seaboard. We hardly know these conditions yet, but I could enumerate half
60 a dozen diseases.

Page 23
1 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: We have a common interest in preventing disease from decimating
2 Australia?
3 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: But it would not decimate Australia, because it could only affect a few
4 people, a comparatively small portion of the northern parts of this continent.
5 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: But it might travel!
6 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: I mean diseases that would not travel; diseases that are strictly tropical.
7 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: If they would not travel they ought not to come under a federal act!
8 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: You cannot pick out these things. The question might be one affecting two
9 or three colonies possibly it might affect Queensland and South Australia only, or possibly also a portion of
10 Western Australia. It might be a question of vital importance to those colonies, but of not the slightest
11 importance to Tasmania, Victoria, or New South Wales.
12 [start page 677]
13 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: Surely the Government would do what was right!
14 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: The Government would do what was right if they had not the ultimate power
15 to do what was wrong.
16 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: The Government would not have any, interest in doing what was wrong!
17 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: We all know that, in representative chambers, the view that ultimately
18 prevails is in accordance with the representation in that chamber. If a district is fairly represented, it gets
19 justice; if it is inadequately represented, and can be disregarded, it very often does not get justice. It would be
20 the same in the case of the senate, if its views could be set aside by a mass referendum. Even the question of
21 marriage and divorce is of importance to all the colonies. At present, we have absolute autonomy in that
22 respect; we make our own laws. It would be an injustice to say that the laws of marriage and divorce, which
23 are to affect South Australia, should be framed by any parliament in which that colony had not an adequate
24 representation. If there were power to set aside the wish of the senate, in which we would have a fair
25 representation, you would make us really a quantity which need not be taken into account at all you would
26 totally abolish our autonomy in these matters; and I say autonomy is too dear a privilege to be lightly got rid
27 of in this way. We all of us now manage our own affairs according to our own views.
28 END QUOTE
29
32 QUOTE
33 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[12.42]: It may be interesting for the hon. and learned
34 member, Dr. Cockburn, to hear this very concise statement of the law of the United States, which would be
35 exactly applicable to this proposed constitution, and very much on the lines that the hon. and learned
36 member, Mr. Isaacs, has just stated. I am citing from a well-known book, Ordronaux's "Constitutional
37 Legislation." At page 296 he says this:
38 By, parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states may exercise their police powers
39 to the extent of prohibiting both persons and animals, when labouring under contagious diseases, from
40 entering their territory. They may pass any sanitary laws deemed necessary for this purpose, and enforce
41 them by appropriate regulations. It is upon this reserved right of self-protection that quarantines are
42 permitted to interfere with the freedom of commerce and of human intercourse. But this power is not
43 without its limitations, and its exercise must be restricted to directly impending dangers to health, and not to
44 those who are only contingent and remote. Hence, while diseased persons or diseased animals, and those
45 presumedly so from contact with infected bodies or. localities, may be prevented from entering a state, any
46 general law of exclusion, measured by months, or operating in such a way as to become a barrier to
47 commerce or travel, would be a regulation of commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being
48 more than a quarantine regulation, transcends the legitimate powers of a state.
49 So it is quite clear that all the powers are left in the state, which are necessary for the preservation of
50 the health of the inhabitants and of the property by the state. Those powers would include power to deal
51 with such diseases in the vegetable world as the hon. and learned member; Dr. Cockburn, has spoken of, and
52 also with animal diseases. It was suggested in Adelaide that these powers might be used in such a way as to
53 have a protective influence in favour of certain states.
54 Mr. Symon: That would be in conflict with the constitution!
55 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: I was going to point that out. There are a number of decisions in
56 America, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned friend, in which on that very ground or
57 similar grounds it has been held that the law, not being a bona fide exercise of the police powers, is not
58 within the powers of the state. Of course, there is another question behind all that, which I think is a very
59 important one, that is, considering the immense traffic, say, in cattle, that there is right across this continent,
60 the infrequency of habitation, and the difficulties of enforcing the quarantine laws from state to state, whether
61 such a disease, for instance, as the tick disease should be dealt with by the authority of the commonwealth

Page 24
1 instead of by the states themselves. It is a very important question, and there are many difficulties in the way
2 of its being dealt with by the federal authority. One of the chief of them is, I think, the impossibility of the
3 federal authority administering an act of that kind without having an enormous array of offic ials and
4 immense expenditure. As we all know, there are in each colony laws-affecting contagious diseases of cattle
5 or sheep, and they are all administered by local bodies, The machinery and administration are simple, and the
6 laws are cheaply worked in the various districts themselves. But if you place them under the federal
7 movement, to be operated by federal officers, you render an [start page 1063] immense machinery
8 necessary to carry out the very simple objects which are carried out by the local bodies at the present
9 time. It appears to me that the balance of reason is in favour of leaving things as they are, leaving power in
10 the states to deal with all those matters that come under the head of police powers in the United States, the
11 infection of animals, the infection of vegetables, the introduction of, animal and vegetable diseases. There is
12 ample power to deal with them, and I think that the matter might be left in that way.
13 The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that there is no question of quarantine or quarantine
14 regulations before the Committee.
15 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia)[12.47]: I think we should renew this debate at some future
16 period. In reply to the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, I may say that I am not at all sure that our
17 proposed constitution does not go further in reference-to free-trade between the states than the American
18 Constitution does, and therefore, it might require some further provision in view of the very strong words
19 which it contains, although such a provision might not be necessary in America. Words simply prohibiting
20 the introduction of actual disease would not be sufficient. I admit that the decision which has been quoted
21 relates also to anything that has been in contact with any disease in anyway. But it would be necessary in
22 many cases actually to prohibit the introduction of all cattle and all vegetables of a certain character. If
23 Queensland were to relax her local quarantine regulations, it might be necessary for the adjoining colony to
24 prohibit a single hoof of cattle from crossing the border, and this might be held to be an absolute derogation
25 from freedom of trade, unless there were special provision in the constitution dealing with it. It might be
26 necessary for South Australia to prevent the importation of any portion of a vine, and this might be said to
27 seriously derogate from freedom of trade between the colonies. I ask the Drafting Committee to be
28 exceedingly careful in the matter. I think the power does not exist, and I am sure that it should exist for
29 otherwise we should find that the opposition to this constitution bill, if it is assumed that there is no such
30 power given, would be of a very fierce and vehement character.
31 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)[12.49]: I think that I can reassure the hon. and learned member to some extent. He
32 has raised an important point, and I do not think that we should reserve these important points until we meet
33 in Melbourne, but should settle them now if we can do so.
34 The Hon. E. BARTON: In how many weeks? We have not finished one provision in two and a half
35 hours!
36 Mr. HIGGINS: But this is one of the most important parts of the bill. I think it is our duty, not to have
37 tentative solutions, but to make the best solution we can, and I feel, now that this question has been raised, it
38 is our duty to devote ourselves to it. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the proposed bill goes
39 further in the direction of providing for free intercourse and freedom of trade between the states than does the
40 American Constitution. It goes much further.
41 An HON. MEMBER: By reason of the general words in clause 89. It is proposed to eliminate those
42 words!
43 Mr. HIGGINS: Yes; I made a note of that. It is perfectly clear that under the American Constitution a state
44 can make a law preventing the sale within its own borders of animals having any disease, and to prevent the
45 introduction of such animals, into its territory.
46 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: There is no doubt about that!
47 Mr. HIGGINS: The hon. and learned member is quite right in saying that if clause 89 remains as it is
48 the states of the [start page 1064] Australasian commonwealth will have no such power. A good
49 example of the application of this law in America is given at page 104 of Baker's "Annotated Constitution of
50 the United States":
51 The statute of Minnesota approved April 16th, 1889, entitled " An act for the protection of the public health,
52 by providing for inspection, before slaughtering of cattle, sheep, and swine designed for slaughter for human
53 food" is unconstitutional and void in so far as it requires, as a condition of sales in Minnesota of fresh beef,
54 veal, mutton, lamb, or pork for human food, that the animals from which such meats are taken shall have
55 been inspected in that state before being slaughtered. The inspection thus provided for is of such a character,
56 or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent the introduction into the state of sound meats, the
57 product of animals slaughtered in other states.
58 To make an inspection law was prima facie within the powers of the state of Minnesota; but the state
59 legislature went beyond its powers in enacting an act which provided for an inspection of such a character as
60 to interfere with the sale in Minnesota of meat brought from other states, Under the b ill, as it stands,
61 measures to prevent the introduction of tick will be beyond the powers of the states to enact. Under the
62 American Constitution, full power is given to provide against the introduction of tick into a state; but if in
Page 25
1 preventing the introduction of tick or other disease, an undue interference with the course of trade is created,
2 which protects one state against the other states, the courts will interfere, and say that the law is
3 unconstitutional and void. I think that the course of leaving this matter to the Drafting Committee to consider
4 is the correct one.
5 The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[12.53]: I intimated a little earlier -I do not know that the hon.
6 and learned member, Dr. Cockburn, heard me-that I intended to make clause 89 read in this way:
7 So soon as uniform duties of customs have been imposed, trade and intercourse throughout the
8 commonwealth is not to be restricted or interfered with by any taxes, charges, or imposts.
9 If this amendment is made, the matter maybe considered in connection with clause 99, which provides that:
10 All powers which at the establishment of the commonwealth are vested in the parliaments of the
11 several colonies, and which are not by this constitution exclusively vested in the parliament of the
12 commonwealth, or withdrawn from the parliaments of the several states, are reserved to, and shall
13 remain vested in, the parliaments of the states respectively.
14 At the present time this power exists in all the states; but if the amendments I have suggested be carried the
15 prohibition of the importation of diseased animals or plants will not be a matter of taxes, charges, or imposts.
16 Therefore, the power to prevent the introduction of diseases would still remain with the states, except
17 in so far as any state law was found to be an intentional derogation from the freedom of trade. I think
18 that if we amend clause 89 in the way I suggest the object of the hon. and learned member, Dr. Cockburn,
19 will be met; but if it is not met I will undertake to deal with the matter in any way that he suggests.
20 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: I am quite satisfied!
21 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[12.56]: Will the hon. and learned member also take note in this
22 connection of the concluding words of clause 95? That clause must be brought into accord with clause 89 as
23 amended. I would also point out with regard to the word "country" that some little difference of opinion may
24 arise as to the meaning of that word. The sub-clause relates to "countries" and to "states." "States" we know
25 are such parts of Australia as are within the commonwealth. If any colony stands out it may be a little
26 doubtful whether it will be a "country." Would Queensland, if it stood out, be a "country"?
28 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: A territory would be either a state of the commonwealth, or another
29 country!
30 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: The word "country" might mean an independent state.
31 The Hon. E. BARTON: I will keep the matter in mind, though I fancy it is all right!
32 Sub-clause 1 agreed to.
33
34 END QUOTE
35
38 QUOTE
39 Sub-clause 11. Quarantine.
40 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[2.43]: I think there is a matter connected with this
41 clause which deserves consideration. In the first place, we ought to be clear in our minds what we
42 intend to, cover by the word "quarantine" The word "quarantine" in its original meaning no doubt
43 applied only to the quarantine of ships-the quarantine of forty days required under the old laws for the
44 purification of a ship from disease. But I think the meaning of quarantine has gradually, extended
45 much beyond that, and the word is now applied to an enclosure to prevent diseases that have been
46 contracted on board ship from spreading to the land. It means general powers of isolation in all cases. I
47 think we ought, in [start page 1072] the first place, to decide whether we intend to interfere with the
48 general health powers which the states now possess, and ought, perhaps, to retain, or only with those
49 matters which are generally spoken of as marine quarantine. The question is whether we should give
50 power to the commonwealth under any circumstances to legislate in regard to those matters that
51 belong to the care of the public health in the different states?
52 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: They would not do that, unless they thought that the health of other states
53 was concerned!
54 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: This is one of those cases in which we should first of all decide on a policy,
55 and then make a definite provision. As to what the policy should be, it appears to me that the commonwealth
56 power should extend only to those matters that affect the health of the commonwealth from outside.
57 Therefore I am prepared to move:
58 That the word "quarantine" be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "public health in
59 relation to infection or contagion from outside the commonwealth."
60 I will point out one reason why a provision of that kind is necessary. Supposing that all the colonies were
61 not included in the federation, you might have smallpox, or some other contagious disease, in one colony
Page 26
1 which was not in the federation, and along the whole line of the boundary it would be necessary to make
2 exactly similar provisions to those which would have to be made at the seaports. Now, under the head of
3 "quarantine" I doubt very much whether such a power would be included; whereas if you say that the power
4 is to be over matters connected with the "public health in relation to infection or contagion from outside the
5 commonwealth," you state accurately what you mean." It appears to me that those words cover every
6 possible case you want to deal with, and would make a line of demarcation between diseases that arose or
7 spread within the states themselves which is a matter that ought to be dealt with by the health authorities of
8 each state -and diseases that arose outside, which undoubtedly could be dealt with properly only by one
9 authority for the whole commonwealth. In the first place, as far as policy is concerned, that is a matter for the
10 Committee to decide. If hon. members decide as to policy, then how it is to be expressed is more or less a
11 matter of drafting. But if the matter is considered worthy of consideration, I will move the insertion of the
12 words I have suggested.
13 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[2.48]: I hope that the hon. and learned member will not move an
14 amendment to that effect. I think that the meaning of the word "quarantine" is pretty well known.
15 There is no doubt that leaving the sub-clause as it is preserves to every state the power that it now has
16 to make laws in relation to all such subjects. It does not vest an exclusive power in the commonwealth to
17 pass such laws. The state can pass its own law, and alter it as it pleases; but I think it is well to do as
18 was done in the Canadian act in that respect-to give a power which the commonwealth might, in case
19 of emergency, employ for the sake of the general health power to make a law respecting quarantine, as
20 it is generally understood, so as to preserve all the ports of the commonwealth, not only from infection
21 from abroad, but also from the danger of any infection which might have reached one port of the
22 commonwealth spreading to the rest of the commonwealth. I think that there is no great harm in retaining
23 the word "quarantine," and that, if we were to eliminate this word, the day might come when we would very
24 much regret having done so.
25 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: The subclause as it stands now provides for the quarantine of animals!
27 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: I believe it would include the quarantine of animals if those animals when
28 slaughtered would go into consumption as food, and might thereby affect the public health.
29 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: What about the quarantine of dogs?
30 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: I think that the federal parliament should have the power to deal with this
31 matter if it thinks fit to do so, While the states might be left to protect themselves, surely, no harm
32 would be done if we enabled the federal parliament to do more than any state could do, that is, give
33 protection to the whole commonwealth.
34 The Right Hon. Sir E. BRADDON (Tasmania)[2.52]: At the present time an arrangement has been come to
35 by the joint action of the various colonies in regard to the quarantine of animals. The inspectors of stock meet
36 from time to time, and agree to regulations which are afterwards enforced by their various governments.
37 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: But any one of the colonies may at any time withdraw from the compact!
38 The Right Hon. Sir E. BRADDON: Yes. Of course it is not desirable that any colony should withdraw.
39 The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, intend to move an amendment?
40 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: No. I see that there is sufficient reason for leaving the words in the clause. I
41 drew attention to the matter because I thought it was worthy of consideration, and when we meet again
42 perhaps some improvement may be suggested.
43 Sub-clause 11 agreed to.
44
45 END QUOTE
46
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-As to this sub-section, there are one or two matters which I should like
51 to point out to the committee, and then leave it to them to say if they are matters of drafting or matters of
52 substance. I think myself that they do partake of substance. This is the sub-section which relates to an
53 exclusive power to be given to the Commonwealth to deal with territory or certain pieces of land
54 required for Commonwealth purposes, the territory being for the seat of government, and other pieces of
55 land being for the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, quarantine stations or for any
56 other purposes of general concern.
57 END QUOTE
58
61 QUOTE
Page 27
1 Dr. COCKBURN.-I do not think there ought to be. Whether or not there ought to be is a matter for debate
2 and for settlement by this Convention as a question of principle, and not as a mere matter of wording. Now,
3 take the second part of the sub-section, in which power is given with the consent of the state for the
4 construction, say, of a quarantine station. I question very much whether the power to establish such a
5 station as a leper station, for example, ought to be given to the Federal Parliament without having to
6 consult the wishes of the state in which it is proposed to establish such an institution. The Federal
7 Parliament will be a distant body, and it may not be exactly apprised of all the local conditions. It may want
8 to establish a leper station in some part of Australia where its establishment would be most disastrous to the
9 interests of the communities in the vicinity, which ought, I think, to have a voice in a matter of this sort.
10 These words are put in to make it abundantly clear that the federal capital shall be chosen only with the
11 consent of the state concerned, which consent would, of course, be given in most cases. I should like to have
12 the matter I have referred to made perfectly clear. It is open to doubt at present, I think, whether the
13 Federal Parliament will have power to take any land for the purposes of government without the
14 consent of the state concerned. I do not think the Federal Parliament should have such a power, and I
15 should be sorry to see it have such a power by the mere insertion of certain words which were not
16 intended to have that meaning. I should like this committee to be clear as to whether or not it is
17 intended that the Federal Parliament should have power to take land from any state without the
18 consent of the state.
19 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I think the honorable member who has last spoken is quite
20 right; but there is a great distinction between the two classes of matters dealt with in this sub-section. I
21 think that the seat of government of the Commonwealth ought to be in quite a different position t o
22 such matters as the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and so on. Dr. Cockburn will
23 recollect that there is no such power for the acquisition of land for the ordinary public purposes of the
24 Commonwealth.
25 Dr. COCKBURN.-Might not the power be included in the general powers of sub-section (37)?
26 Mr. OCONNOR.-No. The only powers that can be held to be given are those which are expressly
27 given. It will be wise, later on, to add a clause which I think the Convention will see the advis ability of
28 adding, restricting the power to acquire land to acquisition for the public purposes of the
29 Commonwealth; and I think it should then be made very clear that no power is given in that clause to
30 acquire land for a federal capital without the consent of the state interested. Because it is quite clear,
31 from the nature of things, that it is quite impossible that a power of that kind could be carried out
32 without such an amount of friction and difficulty as might lead to a great deal of trouble.
33
34 END QUOTE
35
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly; because in regard to defence there should be a paramount power for
40 the Commonwealth to act as might be thought necessary, and there should be a similar power with
41 regard to quarantine and other matters which are of general concern. But with regard to the acquisition
42 of a piece of land for the seat of government, which must [start page 259] embrace a large area and be an
43 exceedingly important matter for the state in which it is situated, the Commonwealth should not have power
44 to obtain such land without the consent of the state. That can be dealt with when we are dealing with the
45 general clause, giving power to acquire land for the use of the state.
46 Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not clause 105 answer that objection?
47 Mr. OCONNOR.-No; that is simply a permissive power to the Parliament of the state to surrender any
48 portion of its territory.
49 Mr. ISAACS.-And saying what shall happen if they do.
50 Mr. OCONNOR.-Quite so; but that clause does not deal with the question as to whether the
51 Commonwealth may acquire land for any purpose.
52 Mr. SYMON.-Is that power of the state necessary in this Constitution at all?
53 Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not know that it is.
54 Mr. SYMON.-I think it is an interference.
55 END QUOTE
56
58 Convention)
59 QUOTE

Page 28
1 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I remember well that this question was raised in Adelaide by the
2 honorable member (Dr. Cockburn), and there is a great deal in it. The section in the American Constitution is
3 as follows:-
4 No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what
5 may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts
6 made by any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States, and all such
7 laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
8 Then it goes on to other subjects, such as maintaining armies and levying war. A case which the honorable
9 member (Mr. Isaacs) mentioned appears clearly to go the length which he suggested, that is that this section
10 as it exists in the American Constitution, or the parallel clause, does not deal with inter-state commerce but
11 only with imports from or exports to foreign countries. That might be got rid of, as far as this clause is
12 concerned, by a small amendment. For instance, after the words "imports and exports," we might insert
13 "inter-state or foreign" or similar words. That will show clearly that the power was intended to be reserved to
14 the states to deal with importation even from other colonies of such pests as have been mentioned. It might be
15 as well between now and the next occasion upon which we deal with this clause to draft an amendment to
16 meet the position. Mr. Isaacs has referred me to a decision in America, in the State of Minnesota v. Barber,
17 136 U.S., 313, which goes this length:-
18 The statute of Minnesota providing for inspection within the state of animals designed for meat, by its
19 necessary operation practically excludes from the markets of that state all fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or
20 pork, in whatever form, if taken from animals slaughtered in other states, notwithstanding the same may be
21 sound and healthy. The result is that it thus directly tends to restrict the slaughtering of animals whose meat
22 is to be sold in Minnesota to those engaged in such business in that state. This discrimination is an
23 encumbrance on commerce amongst states, and is unconstitutional. It cannot be regarded as a rightful
24 exertion of the police power of the state. A burden thus imposed is not to be sustained simply because the
25 statute imposing it applies alike to the people of all the states, including the state enacting it.
26 That is a statute which applied to every animal, whether sound and healthy or not, entering the state and
27 designed for meat. That does not apply to the case which arises under the clause with which we are now
28 dealing. What we want here, I take it, is to see that the states retain power to deal with these pests not in the
29 way of prohibition-and the law which was referred to in that case was a prohibition, and was therefore
30 declared unconstitutional. But we want here a provision that the states shall be able to exercise their powers
31 as individual states at proper places such as the ports and borders. That will not be an infringment of free-
32 trade within the Commonwealth. The way to look at it is: Is it desirable that this power shall be placed in the
33 Commonwealth or among the powers of the states? I am inclined [start page 651] strongly to the latter view. I
34 do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is intended
35 to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
36 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind. I do not think it is intended to enable the
37 Commonwealth to deal with such matters as the tick disease. It has been pointed out by the honorable
38 member (Mr. Fraser) that the Federation should have that power. As far as I am at present advised, that
39 would be a very unwieldy and difficult power for the Commonwealth to use at all. It requires the local
40 knowledge which would only be possessed by the states Parliaments and Governments. I am in favour of the
41 amendment suggested by the honorable member (Mr. Isaacs), and I shall prepare an amendment to make it
42 quite clear that the states shall have power to deal with this matter, not by way of putting on imposts, but
43 simply making charges to enable them to carry out inspection laws.
44 END QUOTE
45
48 QUOTE
49 Dr. QUICK.-I do not think there is any objection on that score. Therefore I would suggest whether the
50 committee should not put naval and military defence under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of clause 90. The
51 same argument will apply with equal force to ocean beacons and [start page 839] buoys, ocean light-houses
52 and light-ships, and quarantine, because the citizens of the Commonwealth are uniformly interested in
53 having a good system in regard to these matters. I think we should accustom ourselves to the system of
54 federalization as far as possible from the beginning; and I feel certain that unless that be done in regard to
55 defence, at any rate, this scheme will receive very hostile criticism outside, and probably the Convention may
56 be accused of a want of breadth of view, as well as of a want of patriotism. There is no financial difficulty
57 arising in regard to the distribution of the surplus in the matter of federal defence, and therefore I would
58 suggest that the matter should be considered as one of importance. Undoubtedly, the proviso to which Mr.
59 O'Connor has directed my attention is a very good one. It goes a long way to meet some of the points I have
60 mentioned.
61 Mr. HOLDER.-It is a half-way-house to complete federation.

Page 29
1 END QUOTE
2
3 See also: Quick & Garran Page 398, etc.
4
5 So much to its all but in my view the above ought to make it clear that the proposed
6 amendments also will be unconstitutional.
7
8 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
9 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
10 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

11 (Our name is our motto!)
12 END QUOTE
13
14 In my view had politicians and others like the Human Rights commissioner and IBAC properly
15 investigated matters upon my various complaints then much harm could have been avoided. And
16 if the politicians had considered my volumes writings published at
17 www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati (which was also emails to them) then they could likely have
18 prevented the spread of any virus long ago and avoided numerous deaths to eventuate also.
19
20 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
21
22 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
23 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
24 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25 (Our name is our motto!)


20200725-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B To COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry (Victoria) - Supplement 1

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

20200725-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B To COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry (Victoria) - Supplement 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

1 validity of this legislation and doing so with a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

54 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

36 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

1 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

1 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

25-7-2020 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18 Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the reservation clause.

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

25-7-2020 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 against domestic violence.

25-7-2020 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-7-2020 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-7-2020 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE Sir PHILIP FYSH:

25-7-2020 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-7-2020 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-7-2020 Page 23 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-7-2020 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25-7-2020 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

10 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

24 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25-7-2020 Page 29 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like