20210826-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Stephanie Brenker Barrister

Page 1
1
2
3 Stephanie Brenker Barrister 26-8-2021
4
5 stephanie.brenker@vicbar.com.au
6 FEEDBACK
7 Stephanie,
8 many HCA judgments were handed down when the Hansards transcripts of the
9 Constitution Convention Debates were prohibited to be used in legal proceedings, however HCA
10 then itself opened the road to use the Hansard records, but failed to reconsider numerous past
11 judgments that were incorrectly decided considering what the Hansard provided for.
12
13 We need to revisit the Latham CJ 1945 statement about vaccinations, etc, and you may discover
14 that by hindsight at the time not allowing the usage of the Hansard it appeared to be correct but
15 now with using the Hansard it was incorrect as to the true meaning and application of the
16 constitution.
17
18 It would be absurd to hold that the Commonwealth could place a person suffering from some
19 “infectious” disease into quarantine but somehow was prohibited to ensure the person was
20 provided by a medical doctor with the appropriate required treatment, including any vaccination.
21 However, no one in his/her right mind could accept that the commonwealth could somehow have
22 healthy people not suspected and neither medically assessed to be forced to be injected with
23 whatever merely because some or more politicians may desire to pursue some depopulation
24 agenda.
25 Regretfully there appears to be a lack of proper understanding about the legal principles
26 embedded in the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) and
27 some lawyers who happened to have had some reference to a constitutional issues may claim to
28 be a “constitutional lawyer” which really is an oxymoron, as the constitution must be read and
29 understood in pure layman’s term and not as a lawyer.
30
31 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. CARRUTHERS:
34 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
35 END QUOTE
36 .
37 Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
38 Australasian Convention)
39 QUOTE
40 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
41 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
42 in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
43 END QUOTE
44
45
26-8-2021 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 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
2 Convention)
3 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
4 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
5 END QUOTE
6
7
8 https://auspublaw.org/2020/05/an-executive-grab-for-power-during-covid-19/
9 An Executive Grab for Power

10 During COVID-19?
11
12 QUOTE
13 Indeed, in a rare discussion of the quarantine power, Latham CJ held in
14 obiter that the power would not support a Commonwealth law requiring
15 citizens of the states to submit to vaccination or immunisation (Attorney-
16 General (Vict) v The Commonwealth (“Pharmaceutical Benefits
17 Case”) (1945) 71 CLR 237 at 257):
18
19 Under s 51 (ix) the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws
20 with respect to quarantine. Quarantine legislation may be regarded in most,
21 if not all, of its aspects as a particular form of public health legislation. In
22 relation to quarantine the Commonwealth Parliament has full powers of
23 legislation. It can not only provide that money shall be spent upon
24 quarantine, but it can devise and put into operation a whole compulsory
25 system of quarantine under which duties can be imposed upon persons and
26 penalties inflicted for breach of the law. But in relation to other aspects of
27 public health the Commonwealth (once again leaving out of account the
28 Territories) has no such power of legislation. The Commonwealth can, in
29 my view, authorize the expenditure of public money on inquiries,
30 investigations, research and advocacy in relation to matters affecting public
31 health. But the Parliament could not pass a law requiring citizens of the
32 States to keep their premises clean or to submit to vaccination or
33 immunization.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 I may highluight that in 1945 the High Court of Australia did not allow for consideration of the
37 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 1891,
38 1897 & 1898 however since then the HCA has itself commenced to rely upon it.
39
40
42 Convention)
43 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
44

Page 3
1 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
2 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
3 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
4 END QUOTE
5
7 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
8 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
9 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 In my view, where the Commonwealth can validly establish that a person is “infected” with a
13 “man-kind” disease, being (the alleged) COVID-19 or any other infectious disease then it can
14 legislate for that person to be treated.
15 However, regardless that the States since federation may have legislated as to (such as in
16 Victoria) Fairfield Infectious disease Centre nevertheless since 1908 when the Commonwealth
17 commenced to legislate the States no longer had “concurrent” legislative powers, this as the
18 Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
19
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
23 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
29 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
30 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

31 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
32 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
33 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
39 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
40 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
41 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 Therefore the Commonwealth has within the QUARANTINE powers the legislative power to
45 provide that a person who is held in quarantine due to suffering from a “man-kind” disease then
46 to be treated accordingly to what the medical profession may deem appropriate regarding each
47 particular patient so placed in quarantine.
48
49 The Commonwealth doesn’t require to declare any STATE OF EMERGENCY whatsoever, as
50 its QUARANTINE power provides for the legislative powers. Albeit, the Parliament may
51 provide for the Governor-General to become involved, albeit without it (to provide for the
52 Governor-General’s involvement) the exercise of executive powers is not diminished.
53
54 However, where the Biosecurity Act 2015 provides for the Governor-General to make such a
55 declaration then this kind of declaration, as any declaration made by the Governor-General
Page 4
1 within legal provisions, not being prerogative exercise of powers, then the Governor-General
2 cannot use this powers as some backdoor way to override the constitution. More over the
3 Constitution in fact limits the powers of the Governor-General
4
5 QUOTE
6 2 Governor-General
7 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
8 Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
9 may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure,
10 but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
11 Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
12 END QUOTE
13 Do notice the wording “subject to this constitution”!
14 Actually when you check Section 106 then this includes also the same:
15
16 QUOTE
17 106 Saving of Constitutions
18 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
19 to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
20 Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
21 State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
22 Constitution of the State.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Therefore, the constitution is very clear that the Governor-General is NOT above the
26 constitution and neither so the High Court of Australia!
27
28 Hence, the prerogative powers the Governor-General exercises at all times will be constrained by
29 the provisions of the constitution. Any other powers the Governor-General exercises because of
30 Commonwealth legislation such as to declare a STATE OF DISSASTER do not and cannot
31 interfere with the constitutional limitations of citizens or to by backdoor manner override the
32 constitution.
33 The statement “The river is limited by the water flowing from its tributaries” very much must be
34 deemed applicable.
35
36 Where the Federal Parliament itself cannot override the constitution in any shape or form then
37 neither can it achieve this by backdoor manner to legislate the Governor-General can make a
38 DECLARATION OF DISSASTER to do what it cannot do.
39
40 Where there is a question of any person possibly (suspected) “infected” with a “man-kind”
41 disease then UPON A PROPER MEDICAL ASSESSMENT the Commonwealth may be
42 entitled to have such person placed in quarantine.
43 It is not for the Commonwealth to act as a tyrant and simply lock down the entire country and
44 order anyone to be vaccinated regardless of not being in any ill health merely to suit the NEW
45 WORLD ORDER depopulation program, as this would be unconstitutional.
46 To my knowledge there has as yet not been made out a case that a COVID-19 disease actually
47 exist. At best we have people who have fallen ill but there has to my understanding no case
48 where any SARS-CoV-2 virus was PURIFIED”/”ISOLATED”.
49 Indeed my various writings exposed the admission by many Australian health services that it has
50 no such sample.
51
52 We had this nonsense as a declaration of “WAR AGAINST TERRORISM” but there is no such
53 constitutional powers to make any such declaration by A Prime Minister. The Governor-General
Page 5
1 can only be the one to declare “war” or “peace” using prerogative powers. However if the
2 Commonwealth is under direct attack by foreign powers (as is now with the NEW WORLD
3 ORDER and WEF, etc) or its agents (collaborators, etc, then no DECLARATION OF WAR is
4 needed, as the attack itself is deemed to be a DECLARATION OF WAR by one or more foreign
5 powers. It then also invoke the constitutional powers for citizens to form their militia as to
6 defend themselves against any foreign powers, so their agents, etc.
7
8 hansard 10-3-1898 constitution convention debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
10 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
11 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen herself, or her
12 representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen wo uld
13 declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
20 with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
21 END QUOTE
22 .
23
26 QUOTE
27 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon
28 asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the
29 prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never
30 entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 For the record as a candidate in the 2001 political federal election I opposed the validity of the
34 2001 election and refused to vote in that I held the “compulsory” part was unconstitutional. I
35 may state that on 19 July 2006 I representing myself as always, comprehensively defeated the
36 Commonwealth and the States in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka which also included a NOTICE OF
37 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
38
39 To avoid this email to become tooo long I refer to my numerous articles published at
40 Scribd.com/inspectorrikat.
41
44 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
45 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
46 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
47 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
48 invest with federal jurisdiction.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
54 END QUOTE
55

Page 6
2 Australasian Convention),
3 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
4 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
5 justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
10 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
11 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
12 any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
13 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
14 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
15 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
16 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
17 securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
18 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
19 the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
20 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
21 daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
22 freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
23 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
24 liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
25 work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
26 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
27 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
28 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
29 with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
30 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
31 next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
32 that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
33 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
34 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
35 Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
36 it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
37 Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
38 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
39 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
40 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
41 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
42 the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
43 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
44 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
45 sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
46 well.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 As to Territories:
50
53 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
54 But let us take first his position in regard to the Commonwealth. Under the power which you have
55 given to the Federal Parliament to make laws regulating immigration and aliens, you embrace every
56 possible set of circumstances under which any person may enter the bounds of the Commonwealth. As
57 you have power to prevent any person from entering any part of the Commonwealth, you have also the
58 power to prevent any person from becoming a member of the Commonwealth community. There is no
59 territorial entity coincident with the Commonwealth. Every part of the Commonwealth territory is
60 part of the state, and it is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state that any person within the bounds
61 of the Commonwealth will have any political rights under the Constitution. Of course, when I speak of
Page 7
1 a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state, which, of course, stands in
2 exactly the same position.
3 Mr. WISE-Is that clear?
4 [start page 1754]
5 Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is admitted to
6 political rights at the will of the Commonwealth, and upon such terms as the Commonwealth may
7 impose. Every person who has rights as a member of the Commonwealth must be a citizen either of
8 some state or some territory. It is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory that he has
9 any political rights in the Commonwealth.
10 Mr. WISE.-Before the 14th amendment was passed it was very much questioned whether a citizen of
11 Washington had any rights at all, because Washington was only a territory.
12 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; but what the honorable and learned member says really supports my
13 argument. The thirteen original states occupied a very small portion of the area now forming the
14 United States of America, and of course the question might arise as to what the position of a person
15 who is not resident of or a citizen of any state, but a resident of a territory, might be in relation to the
16 Commonwealth. But I do not think that that question will arise here, because we cannot imagine, I
17 think, any portion of the Commonwealth becoming a territory now, unless it has been a state at one
18 time-unless it is some portion of a state which has been ceded to the Commonwealth, and in the cession
19 to the Commonwealth there is no doubt that care will be taken to define what the rights of the residents
20 of the territory would be in regard to the political rights of the Commonwealth. It appears to me quite
21 clear, as regards the right of any person from the outside to become a member of the Commonwealth,
22 that the power to regulate immigration and emigration, and the power to deal with aliens, give the
23 right to define who shall be citizens, as coming from the outside world. Now, in regard to the citizens of
24 the states-that is, those who are here already, apart from these laws-every citizen of a state having
25 certain political rights is entitled to all the rights of citizenship in the Commonwealth, necessarily
26 without a definition at all.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
30 QUOTE
31 More to the same effect appears in the debates, which were long and thorough and
32 contain nothing to the contrary. While the general rule precludes the use of these debates to
33 explain the meaning of the words of the statute, they may be considered as reflecting light
34 upon its general purposes and the evils which it sought to remedy. Federal Trade
35 Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 650 , 51 S.Ct. 587, 79 A.L.R. 1191
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Obviously the fact that say Joe Blow may have been speeding for years is no excuse that when
39 caught by a law enforcement agent to then get of the hook because he did it already for so long.
40
41 Likewise, the fact that States may have provided within their health regulations for “infectious
42 diseases” itself cannot alter the fact that since the Commonwealth of Australia in 1908
43 commenced to legislate regarding QUARANTINE issues of “man-kind” suffering a “infectious”
44 disease then from that time the State legislation existing became (s109) subject to
45 Commonwealth legislation and as the Framers of the Constitution also made clear that upon the
46 Commonwealth legislating upon a subject matter then the States no longer could amend any
47 prior (Colonial/State) existing legislation.
48
49 At no time did I hold that section 51(xxiiiA) somehow was related to “compulsory”
50 vaccination issues, other than this part specifically prevents any ability by the Commonwealth to
51 force a medical doctor to “compel” a medical doctor to provide services, where the medical
52 doctor doesn’t desire to do so.
53
54 While a medical doctor seeking payment from services such as from Medicare can be compelled
55 to follow certain conditions, the medical doctor is free to provide services to any patient without
56 making any claim against the Commonwealth (Medicare) and as such any ordinary requirement
Page 8
1 associate with a medical billing so or all of cost against Medicare is not applicable where the
2 patient pays all cost.
3 Likewise if the medical doctor provides services free of charge, as lawyers refer to being Pro
4 Bono.
5
6 On that basis I view the Commonwealth cannot implement either a “vaccine
7 certificate”/”vaccine passport” or other such type of requirement as it is beyond the
8 Commonwealth legislative powers to legislate against healthy persons, that by backdoor manner
9 they must be vaccinated against an alleged disease to be able to obtain services, etc.
10
11 The commonwealth within its QUARANTINE powers therefore has limited legislative powers
12 and cannot somehow dictate a healthy person to be vaccinated merely because it might be good
13 to do so even so there is no known benefits for the existence of the disease.
14
15 Nearly all claimed COVID-19 symptoms are those of the flu other then the loss of smell and lost
16 of taste, but those latter ones are also existing in other issues (see my scribd publications) and as
17 such despite the fear mongering driven by politicians (as they generally do in election cycles)
18 reality is that no real emergency has been proven to exist.
19
20 It is extra ordinary that despite a claimed death toll of more then 4.5 million someone not one
21 corpse was able to provide a SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) “isolated” virus!
22
23 As a retired professional advocate I would have no doubt that in law the Commonwealth would
24 fail in any justification to have an EMERGENCY DECLARATION of a non-proven
25 ALLEGED “INFECTIOUS” DISEASE.
26
27 Obviously people are dying in large numbers, of something, but I understand that the average
28 death toll is similar if not lower then other years prior to the alleged COVID-19>
29
30 We have however that Brad Hazzard as NSW Minister for health (on video) in present of
31 Gladys, Premier, declared that he is implementing the NEW WORLD ORDER.
32
33
34 Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
35 QUOTE
36 In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual
37 injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is
38 of the essence of the conspiracy.”
39 END QUOTE
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
44 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
45 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
46 END QUOTE
47 .
48
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
52 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
53 END QUOTE
54
Page 9
1
2 Where the government states to suport a NEW WORLD ORDER, then this violates s44 of the
3 constitution (remember s106 “subject to this constitution” and as such any minister (also of a
4 state/territory who pursued conduct in vioilation of s44 then AUTOMATICALLY is
5 disqualified from holding any ministerial position.
6 Even if a Court were to hand down a judgment it does so as from the time a person was
7 DISQUALIFIED (consider Barnaby Joyce case) and not merely as to the date of the judgment.
8
9
10 https://www.aap.com.au/constitutional-clause-doesnt-ban-vaccine-mandates-in-australia/
11 QUOTE
12 “It was a response to the fears of the medical profession in Australia at the time
13 (70 years ago) that their profession may be nationalised and their ability to work in
14 private practice restricted,” Dr Simpson said.
15 “It has got nothing to do with coercive immunisation of citizens, then or now.”
16 Scientia professor George Williams, the deputy vice-chancellor and former

17 dean of law at UNSW, told AAP FactCheck the clause could be used to prevent
18 the Commonwealth – although not the states – from compelling doctors to take
19 part in mass immunisation programs.
20 “On the other hand, it would not prevent the Commonwealth from requiring citizens
21 to be vaccinated,” he said in an email.
22 Legal experts also noted that the section of the constitution only relates to the
23 Commonwealth’s power and does not cover responsibilities of the states.
24 Ron Levy, an associate professor with expertise in constitutional law at the ANU
25 College of Law, told AAP FactCheck that even if a person somehow convinced a
26 court to re-read the section to bar mandatory vaccination, that decision would not
27 apply to any laws of the states.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 As I indicated above the states cannot legislate as to any “man-kind” “infectious” diseases and as
31 such cannot legislate as to compulsory vaccination either.
32
33 There is also an issue that zimmerman claims that the states are not bound by s116.
34
35 QUOTE
36 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
37 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
38 religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
39 prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
40 shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
41 under the Commonwealth.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE

Page 10
1 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
2 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
3 funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
4 [start page 1773]

5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?
10 Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community is any
11 reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian persecution-any fear
12 that there will be any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole
13 of the advancement in English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has
14 shown a less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances,
15 or to maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all
16 these colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a
17 Parliament which will be at least as enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various
18 states; therefore, what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
19 relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or possibility, taking into
20 consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly going on of any of these various
21 communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these
22 communities in which we live, have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised
23 under a different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement; if, as this
24 progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State
25 becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former
26 days with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of
27 Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as
28 much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in respect of the
29 Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any one of the states. Now, we have
30 shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a
31 provision that might be held to be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various
32 religions which are believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other
33 races, which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any
34 civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of legislation in
35 regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the
36 making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we
37 have all these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its
38 regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of
39 humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on
40 humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a
41 dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page 1772] of their
42 hands the power of preventing any such practices.
43 Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill?
44 Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent anything
45 that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
46 Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.

47 END QUOTE
48 Again, “We have abolished state religion in all these colonies” and as such the constitution
49 was drafted upon this. it means that the states are bound by this embedded legal principle.
50
51 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the
52 National Australasian Convention)
53 QUOTE

Page 11
1 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the
2 Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not
3 going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. We are
4 going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state at present has the power
5 to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not disturb
6 that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-
7 riding power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall
8 observe for religious reasons, and what day they shall not observe for that purpose.
9 The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law it likes under my scheme.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 As such, while there is a separation of Church and State it doesn’t prevent a State to legislate to
13 prohibit certain religious practices, such as within criminal laws, such as circumcision, etc, when
14 pursued as part of a religious conduct.
15
17 QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
18 If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what
19 further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in
20 ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is
21 necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of
22 Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews,
23 Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable
24 only to Christians.
25 END QUOTE
26 .
27
28 The issue of “peace, order and good government” the HCA seems to have the notion it has no
29 meaning.
30
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. ISAACS.-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52
34 we find these governing words on the very forefront of that clause-
35 That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power
36 and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
37 Commonwealth.
38 We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states.
39 END QUOTE
40 However, as the HCA is not above but under the constitution (part of the constitution) it lacks
41 any judicial powers to make a declaration in violation to the constitution.
42
43
45 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
46 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
47 that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
48 trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
49 clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
50 harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
51 too much care has not been exercised.
52 END QUOTE

Page 12
1 .
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
5 in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
6 make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
7 Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
8 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
9 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
10 for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
11 States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
12 Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
13 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
14 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given
15 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
16 direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
17 there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Therefore the wording “peace, order and good government” are relevant and must be interpreted
21 to what they stood for at the time of federation!
22
23 QUOTE:-
24 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what
25 Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this
26 Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which
27 they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by
28 people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those
29 decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
30
31 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
32 makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27 \99)
33
34 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
35 remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
36 borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
37 "
38 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
39
40
41 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
42 27 (17 June 1999)
43 QUOTE
44 Constitutional interpretation
45 1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
46 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs,
47 hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of
48 those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention
49 of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context
50 in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
51 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
52 opinion[53]:
53 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

54 available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an

Page 13
1 exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not

2 mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means
3 trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a
4 social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
5 particular way on a particular occasion."
6 END QUOTE
7 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by
8 s73 of the Constitution.
9 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
10
11
12 We then must consider also:
13
15 Convention)
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
22 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
23 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
29 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
30 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
31 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
35 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
38 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
39 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
40 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
46
47 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
48 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
49 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
50 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 Therefgore, the “fundamental rights” referred toby the Framers of the Constitution cannot be
54 disregarded by some alleged claim of some killer disease without any real evidence that it exist.
55
56 Because someone dies in a motor car accident and was declared in the USA to have died from
57 COVID-19 does not mean that he really was killed, this even so pathologist made known that
58 they were directed nevertheless to list COVID-19 as the cause of death!
Page 14
1
2 We have governments mouthing of about “cases” but I understand that in medical terms a “case”
3 only exist when a medical doctor having examined a patient and having considered the relevant
4 tests, etc, the patients had undergone then declare that the Patient suffers of a certain health issue.
5 Then this can be deemed to be a case for whatever the medical doctor made the declaration
6 where it actually related to a disease, and not so to say having some hearing deficiency.
7
8 Currently the PCR testing has been hailed as establishing if a person suffers from COVID-19 this
9 even so its inventor made clear it couldn’t be used for establishing if a person suffered of any
10 medical condition. Indeed the FDA and CDC have aborted the reliability of the PCR test. The
11 PCR test ought to have been used in laboratories on about 17 cycles (17Ct) as I understand from
12 publications but was in fact used in laboratories at 40 to 45Ct’s.
13
14 Say the Australian Federal Police nabs a person seeking to import some drug. Say the legislation
15 were to permit personal usage of 5 grams, or being 0.005KG. However as the weight is 0.004
16 KG the AFP simply use a con-job to claim in court that it is say about 0.008p. The Trial judge
17 not realising that “p” relates to “pounds” and therefore the weight is not as the legislation refers
18 to be excessive then the accused might be convicted whereas if the correct reference had been
19 used no conviction may have been applicable/justified.
20 And this is the same with the numerous “false positives” that are created in laboratories, where
21 NSW Department of health admitted to use 45 cycles and as such all this elaborate noise about
22 “cases” is merely fabricated by deception.
23
24 I can assume that not a single alleged “case” may actually be of a medical doctor having by
25 examination of the Patient and considering any test results to have been “certified” to indeed
26 being COVID-19.
27
28 After all if you have no “isolated”/”purified” sample to check back against then how on earth
29 could you know if you have the real thing at all?
30 How does anyone know you got the DELTA variant if you cannot compare it with any originally
31 claimed SARS-CoV-2 virus?
32
33 I have not worn a face mask during 2020 or 2021 and it seems because I do not fear this alleged
34 KILLER disease COVID-19 it instead is scared to come near me?
35 My wife (88) suffers from heart failure and other comorbidities and while she tried 3 times to
36 wear a face mask in 2020 she gave up and no longer does so.
37 Again, not having the fear keeps away the so called KILLER disease COVID-19.
38
39 Or perhaps we have for long relied upon our own medical treatment long before COVID-19
40 allegedly came around.
41 We for many years do not watch television, listen generally never to the radio and do not read
42 those fear mongering newspapers.
43
44 Many years ago I decided to purchase a new television for the kitchen also and well having set it
45 up I decided I wouldn’t watch any tv, neither the one in the living room. So, it is not about not
46 having a television but simply deciding no more to bother about the general garbage that is
47 shown on television.
48 It turn out this was the best kind of medication to apply!
49

Page 15
1 Much more to it all but you may get the drift, that in my view the Commonwealth, not the States
2 can exercise powers as to vaccinations but limited to those who are medically found to be
3 infected and which had to be placed in quarantine.
4
5 It means that the conduct of the State Police, the ADF, etc, to enforce State demands is a kind of
6 terrorism and those including the politicians,/health officials, and others which are all supporting
7 this unconstitutional denial of citizen’s rights are be deemed to be agents of a foreign enemy
8 entity/power and by this it is left to citizens to each form their own “militia” to combat the
9 traitors in our midst.
10
12 Convention)
13 QUOTE. Mr. FITZGERALD:
14 With regard to the defence of Australia, in what could federation do more practical good
15 than in defence? In what matter can there be a greater necessity for one headship than in
16 defence? The points which must be defended, which strengthen us in these colonies, are far
17 distant, and how can we efficiently or economically defend them, except by having a
18 united force-a force which will be under one head, and which will be ready at any point,
19 should our country ever be invaded. Reference was made to a standing army. A standing
20 army! What a reflection upon the military spirit of young Australia. A standing army
21 we may have merely as an example of what steadiness, discipline, and obedience can
22 do; but our defence must be the stout arms of our sons-our own sons as a militia,
23 charged with the duty of defending that land which they ought to love, and inspired
24 by the devotion of those men who may be paid servants of the Crown, but who never,
25 either in this country or in the old country, turned their back on an enemy, or did
26 anything but what will redound to the glory of English arms.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 What should be understood is that where the States do not have any legislative powers as to
30 “infectious diseases” (“man-kind”) then it neither can have any power to declare a STATE OF
31 EMERGENCY/STATE OF DISSASTER regarding any “infectious disease.
32 As such, while a State can issue a STATE OF EMERGENCY/STATE OF DISSASTER when it
33 comes to bushfires & floods it cannot use them regarding any “infectious disease, as this would
34 violate the Commonwealth legislative powers.
35 It also means that any purported powers for the Chief Health Officer regarding “infectious”
36 disease are not existing for the States.
37
38 As for the police power to enforce the Chief health Officers draconic decisions that I view is also
39 unlawful. The Victorian Police keeps saying they are acting for the Chief Health Officer, who
40 can exercise only “administrative” powers and not “executive” powers. As such the Victorian
41 Police cannot act as police for the Chief health Officer. As this would mean some non-executive
42 person could have his/her own police force. Clearly, administrative powers can only be exercised
43 by applying to a court for orders. It is then the impartial Administration of Justice which then
44 hearing both sides decide to issue orders or not. It is absurd that as WA legislated the police and
45 even the ADF could enter private property and inject any person with “POISON” and not be
46 held legally liable.
47
48 While in times of war the ADF as any other armed forces may acquire property when fighting
49 enemy forces, this doesn’t mean that a citizen lost his/her constitutional rights but rather that
50 afterwards the citizen can claim compensation against the Government. The civil war in the USA
51 underlines that the courts afterwards compensated citizen for items (such as horses) having been

Page 16
1 confiscated during the civil war, not because the armed forces had a right to do so, as the
2 constitution remains applicable, and for this the courts awarded compensations.
3
4 The same in a time of emergency/disaster the constitutional rights of citizen do not evaporate but
5 merely in the circumstances in an emergency are violated. The courts then have to determine if
6 the violation was reasonable in the circumstances and if not further compensation can be
7 ordered.
8
9 There is no such thing as to jab citizens merely because the governments are spooked or desires
10 to implement a NEW WORLD ORDER in violation of S44 of the Commonwealth of Australia
11 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) where a citizen has not been properly assessed by a medical doctor
12 that such jabbing is appropriate consider the health and wellbeing of the patient concerned.
13 As I have also written about, where the Federal government entered into contractual agreement
14 to purchase the so called vaccines, then none of those so called vaccines can be lawfully used,
15 this is because they are subject to a commercial deal and the “provisional approval” relates only
16 to “clinical trial” vaccines.
17
18 So much more but for now ample to consider.
19
20 While this following document is already several months old and the situation is now far worse,
21 as my writings published at Scribd also sets out, nevertheless it may give some indication what
22 we are heading for.
23
24 https://greatreject.org/pfizer-holocaust/
25 Pfizer vaccine: Experts speak of "a new Holocaust" (greatreject.org)
26
27 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
28
29 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
30 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
31 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

32 (Our name is our motto!)


20210826-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Stephanie Brenker Barrister

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

20210826-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Stephanie Brenker Barrister

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

26-8-2021 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9 An Executive Grab for Power

26-8-2021 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

26-8-2021 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

16 Scientia professor George Williams, the deputy vice-chancellor and former

26-8-2021 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4 [start page 1773]

46 Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.

26-8-2021 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-8-2021 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

53 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

26-8-2021 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not

26-8-2021 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

26-8-2021 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

31 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

26-8-2021 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like