WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Director, General Policy 22-4-2011

Law Council of Australia, GPO Box 1989, Canberra ACT 2600
5 Email: ConstitutionalRecognition@lawcouncil.asn.au
.
Ref: SUBMISSION Aboriginal issues - etc
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The “introduction” refers to 56,000 Australian lawyers and yet it seems to me we can well
10 without them if this the best of a “Discussion paper” it can present.
As a self educated CONSTITUTIONALIST I have none of the crippling limitations as lawyer
have from their legal studies and so understand and comprehend the constitution far better then
most if not any of the 56,000 lawyer do.
If we had a simple competent lawyer out of the 56,000 Australian lawyers then we wouldn’t have
15 the existence of a purported “Australian citizenship” as a nationality. We wouldn’t have the
existence of a Commonwealth Detention Centre and on and on I can go.
Excuse me is there any competent lawyer in Australia?
Did any lawyer at all understand that the purported “recognition” of Aboriginals is like the fake
“Apology” that achieves nothing in real terms and doesn’t stop the suffering of numerous
20 Aboriginals such as under the unconstitutional Northern Territory Intervention Act? Surely,
stopping the suffering should be the first issue and not playing with the constitution to give some
self gratification rather then showing a real concern to the plight of Aboriginals?
Constitutionally Aboriginals are no longer amongst us as equal and deemed citizens as all those
lawyers involved in the 1967 referendum to amend subsection 51(xxvi) made sure of that even so
25 they may have lacked the brain power to understand/comprehend the harm they were for the long
term inflicting upon Aboriginals. Let stop the crap and stop promoting the cause of Aboriginals
while ignoring their suffering.
In point 1.1 it refers to bipartisan support for a referendum to recognise Aboriginals as the first
inhabitants. It also refers to the 1988 Royal Commission which I am informed “assumed” that the
30 Commonwealth can legislate as to “citizenship”. What an utter crap.
Let’s make it absolutely clear that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that Aboriginals
who were granted colonial/state franchise would within s41 of the constitution have the same
franchise rights in the federation. As such the few hundred Aboriginals then holding
colonial/state franchise voted in the first federal election. Within s41 any Commonwealth
35 legislation adverse to this would be unconstitutional and hence the 1908 white only legislation
was unconstitutional. Now I am not a lawyer but a CONSTITUTIONALIST and it seems to me
that any fair dinkum lawyer would have attacked the constitutional validity or the lack thereof
the 1908 legislation. What we had was that instead Aboriginals were humiliated and robbed of
their constitutional rights.
40 Now, then we had some lawyers who had a bright idea to amend subsection 51(xxvi) to allow the
Commonwealth to legislate as to Aboriginals. Just that the Federal government then in the early
1950’s was advised forget this nonsense because there is too much baggage with subsection
51(xxvi) and you better create altogether a new subsection. The federal government just
abandoned the entire issue then.
45 .

p1 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 So, in 1967 the same issue arose and now the Aboriginals themselves were in total support, once
even being later awarded the human Rights medal for this, what for what I view treasonous
conduct to rob Aboriginals of equality and turn them into non-citizens? After all the framers of
the Constitution had embedded the legal principle that the moment the Commonwealth
5 Parliament had enabled an special enactment (legislated) as to any race then they automatically
would loose their citizenship! Obviously so as to prevent such a race to use any voting power to
overturn the legislation.
So, what really eventuated with the 1967 referendum to amend subsection 51(xxvi) was to rob
Aboriginals of their citizenship rights the moment any special legislation was enacted in regard
10 of them as like any other race against whom special legislation was enacted.
There is no such thing as having a constitutional provision that has a meaning pending to whom
it refers. As the referendum related to aboriginals and not to other races it therefore cannot be
held that the referendum intended to alter the legal position of any other race and hence all that
Aboriginals could then achieve was to be treated the same as other races being deemed inferior
15 coloured raced not deemed equal to other Australians. I will refrain to include various references
and quotations safe to say they are published in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
on certain constitutional and other legal issues and also on my blog at
http://www.scribd.com/InpectorRikati.
Constitutionally Aboriginals have no right to be in any Parliament because they no longer are
20 deemed citizens. Then again what is citizenship is another issue.
Constitutionally citizenship is pertaining the political rights of a person residing within a State as
“State citizenship” and by this AUTOMATICALLY gains the legal position to be an
“Australian citizens” meaning a political status in the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth never had any constitutional right to define/declare citizenship!
25 The constitution neither provided for any Royal Commission or for that the High Court of
Australia indeed for any court or Parliament to amend the constitution as that power was
exclusively reserved for the People by way of voting in a referendum to veto or approve a
proposal of the Parliament to amend a constitution.
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
30 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
35 not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
40 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
45 .
Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am
wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are
50 subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is,
as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left
for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not
state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national
referendum.
55 END QUOTE
p2 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 .
Upon federation all colonial sovereign Parliaments became constitutional Parliaments and also
could no longer amend their own constitutions but could only propose any amendment to the
State electors. Hence any constitutional amendment that purportedly was made but never
5 approved by a relevant State referendum is no amendment at all. As such the Queensland
purported 2001 and the Victorian 1975 constitutions are a nullity as neither one of them were
approved by the State electors. Actually any reference of legislative powers from the States to the
Commonwealth within subsection 51(xxxvii) can only be constitutionally valid if approved by
State referendum (section 123) because a reference of legislative powers is in fact amending a
10 State constitution by reducing the legislative powers of future Parliaments. The 1986 purported
reference of powers to the Commonwealth regarding children was a sheer and utter nonsense and
is and remains to be unconstitutional and the fact that the lawyers involved lacked any
competence in constitutional matters is shown where the legislation purports that the governor
somehow can rescind the legislation whereas the Framers of the constitution made clear that once
15 the legislation was enacted by the Commonwealth the n forever this was a Commonwealth
domain and the states no longer could deal with this.
This was with the Income Tax as well as with land Taxes. Yet, we found that albeit the
Commonwealth legislated in 1910 for the land Tax office the forerunner of the current ATO but
abolished land taxes in 1952 then somehow NSW in 1956 and other States subsequently
20 commenced to legislate as to State land Taxes even so no State had retained this legislative
power. All those lawyers engaged in State land taxes never had the competence to understand
this was unconstitutional! So much for being a lawyer!
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised. By putting into the Constitution words prohibiting the Commonwealth Parliament from making
certain specified laws you create the implication that the Parliament has power to deal in other respects with
religious observances.
30 END QUOTE
.
Well, NSW in its recent correspondence to me claimed that the legislative powers had been
“returned” to NSW. Excuse me can anyone show where in the constitution there is any provision
to return legislative powers from the Commonwealth to the States? I can tell you it doesn’t exist.
35 More over, the land taxes became subject to “uniform” taxation and even if the States had be
deemed to collect land taxes for and on behalf of the Commonwealth then this could only have
been so if the Commonwealth had legislated for this and all land taxes remained uniform
throughout the Commonwealth. That clearly didn’t exist. More over, when a Commonwealth
legislation is enacted then its legal principles applies to the whole of the Commonwealth of
40 Australia. Meaning that when the Commonwealth legislated in 2009 for pensions and other
welfare payments to be increased as per CPI (Consumer Price Index) then this bound the States
to observe this legal principles and by this prohibited any state to increase its charges such as
public housing rent, drivers licences charges, etc for pensioners and other welfare recipients
above the CPI. Actually like wise so any municipal/shire council rates to be increased above
45 CPI! Now the silence of lawyers is deafening that none seemed to raise this issue. Oops the
56,000 lawyers simply lacked any proper training to comprehend this, so it seems to me.
.
Well as I made clear when I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth after a 5 year epic
legal battle on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria about FAILING TO VOTE that the
50 Framers of the Constitution made clear that they refused to give the Commonwealth legislative
powers to make registration/voting compulsory.
Yet, how many lawyers achieved for their clients that they had no case to answer after I
successfully defeated the Commonwealth on these and other constitutional issues?

p3 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 Actually, one issue more relevant to you lot was that not a single lawyer is actually validly
appointed to practice law!
You see Australians are constitutionally “Subject of the British Crown” and it doesn’t matter
what the High Court of Australia may try to make out of it otherwise because the constitution
5 never provided any judicial powers to the High Court of Australia to amend the constitution but
merely interpret the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and as such lacking any kind of
nationality existing as “Australian citizenship” the sheer and utter nonsense portrayed then that
lawyers must have “Australian citizenship” as a nationality before being admitted to the bar is
precisely that, sheer and utter nonsense. As such if the 56,000 lawyer cannot even be aware of
10 their true nationality then what on earth are they trying to do to recommend something about the
constitution,. They all have an identity crisis and they better sort themselves out before they are
going mad, if they not already are.
.
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
15 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
20 .
Fancy judges of the High Court of Australia sitting in judgment in Sue v Hill having sworn an
oath to the Queen of the United Kingdom and then claiming there is a Queen of Australia. To me
this is treason because their oath of office prevents them also to declare anything contrary to their
oath. Fancy the High Court of Australia declaring that somehow the Commonwealth of Australia
25 is an independent country. Well let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution had to state:
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
30 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
35 provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
40 Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
45 not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
joining the Union.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
50 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of
federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on
the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is
to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again
55 and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as
lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
END QUOTE
p4 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 .
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
5 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
10 under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
15 .
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.
20 END QUOTE
.
It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British
subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the
Imperial authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That
25 is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” We have a High Court of
Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth
by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of
Australia committed TREASON?
30 .
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
35 citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
40 citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
45 dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
50 thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
55 citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
.
p5 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
5 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE

10 Well you lot are getting the message, I think, that if you get lawyers sitting at the high Court of
Australia who lack proper training and competence in constitutional matters then you will end up
with nonsense. Sue v Hill, MABO, Sykes v Cleary, Tasmania Dam a, 1923 acquisition case, and
numerous others are clear examples. The sheer incompetence in my view was displayed also by
the High Court of Australia when it held that “every blue eyed baby” (Read Aboriginal and you
15 get the message!) could be legislated to be killed and the Magna Carta is not binding or for that
“peace order and good government”. Well my books canvassed this extensively and how this
being utter and sheer nonsense!
In 2003 I was the only person in the Commonwealth of Australia objecting to the armed
murderous invasion into Iraq upon constitutional grounds. The High Court of Australia in total 4
20 times refused to accept my applications within s75(v) even so the applications were lodged as
directed by the registrar! Constitutionally only the Governor-General can declare war and so
when publishing it in the Gazette. This never eventuated and hence it was an unconstitutional
invasion! A Prime Minister and neither the cabinet can overrule constitutional constrains.
.
25 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
30 responsible Minister.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
35 QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon
asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the
prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never
entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
40 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
45 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
.As such even if Her Majesty declares was for the United Kingdom against a country then it still
doesn’t apply to the Commonwealth of Australia unless the governor-General has published in
50 the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. Now ask yourself when did the Governor-General
ever do so in the past? When did the governor-General ever publish in the Gazette a
DECLARATION OF PEACE?
Now the above are merely some issues I raise and yet demonstrate that despite there are some
56,000 Australian lawyers nonsense appear to have a clue what the true meaning and application
55 of the constitution is and then we have those lawyer trying to get involved in amending or
proposing to amend the constitution?
p6 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 .
Yes, we still are with part 1 “Options for Constitutional Reform” and let’s try to canvass here
is the amendment to recognise Aboriginals as first inhabitants to be placed? I for one cannot see
how on earth this can be done in any of the 128 section or any (sub)section because one must be
5 a lunatic to propose to inset it within this area because then it will affect the constitution and
provide special rights that will totally destroy the existing constitutional arrangements.
Now I am well aware that there are those jokers of politicians/lawyers who think they can amend
the preamble but as it is not part of the 128 section and neither can be amended by section 128
referendum then forget this crazy notion. This is what you get when lawyers think they know it
10 all and plainly stated stuffing about with something they really haven’t got a clue about.
.
If you don’t like the tone of my writing then just consider that if we had some intelligence
amongst the 56,000 lawyers I wouldn’t have needed to make a submission in the first place to try
to avoid this utter and sheer nonsense about amending the constitution in such ridiculous manner.
15 .
No one even seem to have had a clue, I refer to the 56,00 Australian lawyers that the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islanders Act was unconstitutional because within subsection 51(xxvi) a special
legislation can only relate to one specific race. Now, I admit I never had any formal education in
the Commonwealth of Australia and going by my crummy English you may be aware English
20 was not my native language but it seems to me that Aboriginals are one race and Torres Strait
Islanders were another and so the enactment was unconstitutional as such.
.
So with 56,000 so to say brainless Australian lawyers who cannot even manage such a simple
issue how then can they have any competence to recommend any amendment of the constitution
25 when they are failing miserably already?
.
That is why I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST rather then a lawyer because at least I am not so to
say brainwashed in believing in fairies and illusions but rather concentrate on the real
constitutional issues.
30 .
Whatever the United Nations may have or may not have declared is of no consequences to the
constitution because constitutionally the Commonwealth is not even an independent nation to be
a member and as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
.
35 Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the
common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
40 .
Actually as my past publications show the European Union Human Rights provisions, for so far
they do not conflict with constitutional provisions are applicable to the Commonwealth of
Australia because as was in the English nature decision made clear the United Kingdom being a
signature to the European Union constitution then had all European Union provisions overriding
45 all British law other then constitutional law and as such while the European Union provisions do
not override constitutional provisions, such as racial discrimination, it can be used in aid of other
provisions but again as long as it doesn’t conflict with constitutional provisions.
.
Currently however with the nonsense of “non-citizenship” legislation in the Migration Act
50 (unconstitutionally obviously) all Aboriginals could be deported as non-citizens. So, here we
have 56,000 Australian lawyer promoting Aboriginals to be recognised as the first inhabitants
and in the process kicked out because they can now be deported as non-citizens!
Seems to me that the 56,000 Australian lawyers better get a grip upon themselves and learn what
really the constitution stands for and undue the gross injustice upon the Aboriginals and revert

p7 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 the gigantic elaborate swindle of the 1967 referendum to reinstall Aboriginals as equal to other
Australians. To me this is far more important.
.
Fancy the apology while robbing Aboriginals of their rights with the Northern Territory
5 Intervention Act. Hello, is there anyone lawyer within those 56,000 Australian lawyers who have
even a bit of brainpower to realise that subsection 51(xxvi) only allows legislation for the whole
of the race and not just some people of a race. So let all Aboriginal lawyers stand up and be
stripped also of their property rights, etc, and see how they like it! After all legislation within
subsection 51(xxvi) can only be valid is the legislation applies to all persons of that race!
10 .
No use arguing about non-discrimination if in real terms this is precisely what is achieved and no
amount of changing word is going to alter this where we have some 56,000 Australian lawyer
incapable of understanding the true meaning and application of the constitution! If anything as
with the `1867 con-job referendum Aboriginals will more then likely suffer more.
15 .
Let’s also consider what the Framers of the Constitution stated: (Darn here I am again quoting
them even so I intended not to do so to avoid lengthy submissions);
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
25 the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
35 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
40 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given 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
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
45 END QUOTE
.
Meaning that if anyone proposes to amend the constitution they better make sure they at least
understand and comprehend the current meaning and application and that it seems not a single
Australian lawyer does as otherwise we wouldn’t be in this utter mess of people committing even
50 suicide because of being robbed of their constitutional rights, etc.
Quite frankly I am not interested in what the United Nations may have stated because didn’t it
also recommend the nonsense of the 1967 referendum that stripped Aboriginals of equality?
What is needed is those 56,000 Australian lawyer to but out of the constitutional issues and to
accept they are just amateurs but trying to take credit for being lawyers and then stuff up it
55 entirely and then the Aboriginals will be caused afterwards to suffer even more.
Do you really think Aboriginals like to be dying due to lack of health service but knowing that
the constitution recognise them as first inhabitants because this makes some lawyers happy?
p8 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 Come on get a hold on yourself and accept that the 56,000 lawyers (including those who are of
Aboriginal descent) miserably failed the Aboriginal community and that it would be better to
consult a CONSTITUTIONALIST like myself who is aware of the constitutional reality and
isn’t going to get involved in vandalising the constitution for the sake of some people wanting to
5 have a good feeling at cost of Aboriginals at large. Shame on all 56,000 Australian lawyers who
have stood by to allow this horrific suffering upon Aboriginals to be inflicted and none and I
repeat none was competent enough to expose this rot as I do.
There was in my view absolutely no need for the 1967 referendum to amend subsection 51(xxvi)
as any competent constitutional lawyer could have pointed out that it was not the constitution but
10 the unconstitutional legislation that was the issue. Ok that seems to be too much to ask to even
have a single competent lawyer amidst 56,000 Australian lawyers and so where for more then 40
years none managed this then take it from me before you engulf Aboriginals and others in
another disaster then check with a real CONSTITUTIONALIST as I am who is not so to say
brainwashed and who can competently consider what might be proposed versus what is
15 constitutionally possible.
.
How on earth can the Law Council (a & b page 12) seek constitutional protection for Aboriginals
when the Framers of the Constitution originally embedded this in the constitution but the
Aboriginals were robbed of this by the 1967 con-job referendum to amend subsection 51(xxvi)?
20 Come on get some education as to me this is utter and sheer nonsense because either you have
subsection 51(xxvi) to discriminate against Aboriginals (as that is the purpose of that
subsection!) or you have it reverted to what it was and then Automatically Aboriginals are
entitled to equal protection under law!
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;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
30 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
35 END QUOTE
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
40 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
45 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
50 daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
55 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
p9 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
 with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
5 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
10 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
15 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
20 I can assure you I will oppose any amendment of the constitution unless it is a proposal that is
properly considered and not merely because 56,000 Australian lawyers think it is alright totally
unaware how it really is applicable or can be applied. As such the Law Council better so to say
gets its act together and stop fancy quotations and become real as to what is constitutionally
appropriate as not to upset the delicate balance within the constitution and at the same time
25 obtain real benefits for Aboriginals for so far not otherwise obtainable.
I would recommend that the Law Council scrap the White Paper and make a real effort to
discover what is constitutionally applicable and possible so that any proposal it makes is
constitutionally viable and not merely perceived to be so and then afterwards cause further
hardship upon Aboriginals. Show me a constitutional lawyer and I show you a fake! Yes, ample
30 of lawyers claim to be constitutional lawyers yet haven’t got a clue what is really constitutionally
applicable as such don’t expect Aboriginals will benefit of their contribution as it will more then
likely be ill conceived by the so called constitutional lawyers! After all none of them could be
aware that State land taxes were unconstitutional and yet charged their clients ample of monies
for what? Who need enemies with lawyers like that I ask?
35 .
This is a very limited submission and is not intended and neither must be perceived to canvass all
relevant issues but you may get the gist of where I come from. Seems to me the Law Council
would do better to have a discussion with me so that it may avoid further horrendous harm
inflicted upon Aboriginals under the disguise of seeking to do the right thing for them.
40 .

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

p 10 22-4-2011
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
st
A 1 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, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com