5

Simon Crean MP, S.Crean.MP@aph.gov.au Cc: Expert panel C/o S.Crean.MP@aph.gov.au Tony Abbott MP Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au Julia Gillard PM R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au

31-8-2011

10

SUBMISSION (Supplement re amending constitution local government) Simon, the dangers of amending the constitution by seeking approval by an uninformed electorate. Generally the average person wouldnt have a clue what an amendment of the constitution will amount to, not just as to what might be portrayed by the Government of the Day at the time the referendum is to be held but decades later when a totally different government of the day may use their lawyers to twist and infringe upon what really was intended. The con-job 1969 s51(xxvi) referendum is a clear example where the electors were given a story that it would deal with Abiori8ginakls but no one actually bothered to explain to the electors how it was going to alter the entire application of this subsection and used and misused.
.

15

20

25

As I understand it the constitution was amended by Constitution Alteration (Referendums) 1977 84, 1977 29 July 1977 but did anyone really understand then what it was about, I doubt it. We have by thi8s amendment ripped apart the very intentions of the constitution that the States determine matters and now all the Commonwealth requires to do is to have any referendum held in different territories and by it could railroad any referendum as to the states rights.
.

30

35

With the issue of changing local councils to local government the referendum was about changing this for the States and not that for the territories and so the Commonwealth could undermine the States internal legislative powers and yet prevent the States to demand the Commonwealth follows suit. What then would eventuate is that if the referendum was to be upheld then the States has to provide for municipal/shire councils to be a level of government while the municipal/shire councils within Territories would not likewise be required to be a level of government.
.

Because the Commonwealth was created to deal with federal issues in general and State internal issues were to remain within state legislative powers we now have that this is totally undermined.
.

40

45

The way the constitution was amended in regard of s128 was not at all as may have appeared to be because what we now have is that by way of Section 122 the Commonwealth could technically create dozens of territories (which in fact already exist because as each Commonwealth property within state boundaries are effectively a territory upon their own, such as every military base, every federal airport, every post office, etc. As such, plainly stated the electors were screwed to amend the constitution to something they many never have anticipated could be put in place.

31-8-2011 Page 1 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The problem that exists is that lawyers often call themselves constitutional lawyers and then advise the government without that they really have a clue what the true meaning of the constitution is let alone its application. Again take the 1967 con-job referendum regarding s51(xxvii) and no elector would at the time have been advised that this would later be used to discriminate against (albeit unconstitutionally) certain groups of Aboriginals. Neither that such amendment would be used to undermine the true meaning regarding races in regard of other races.
.

10

Whatever constitutional advisory committee may exist advising the Government of the Day they appear to me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST to be simply totally incompetent and this may be because they simply never had a proper training to be a CONSTITUTIONALIST but merely because they were lawyers assumed that well they can then claim to be constitutional lawyers no matter how ignorant they were to the true meaning and application of the constitution.
.

15

20

What is required to stop this kind of nonsense is to have a constitutional council that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courts, such as the OFFICE-OF-THEGUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) It is sheer and utter nonsense that such a gross disregard is shown to any amendment of the constitution and no one really bothers to work out how the amendment not only appears to be but how it will affect other parts of the constitution as well as how it could be misused, yes, misused, by other government with their ulterior agenda not intended by the amendment.
.

25

What is now clear is that any Government of the Day could side swiped the entire referendum system by legislating for every piece of Commonwealth Territory to be on its own and then use this to have perhaps hundreds of territories each in their own right participating and then even if all States oppose the referendum then little might be achieved because as long as the majority of people ended up voting for the referendum then the States have no say.
.

30

For arguments sake say a referendum was held that all territories would be excluded from uniform taxation and taxation for territories could be as provided for by the Commonwealth legislation. What we would then have is a disadvantaged by the States as even if a majority of all States were to oppose this the Commonwealth could railroad the States by simply having all Territories voting for it and they will more than likely all give a resounding yes. Now lets say I am the Prime minister and simply want to turn the Commonwealth back into a White Australia and this can easily be accomplished using s51(xxvii) because all I need to do is to enact legislation against each race and while constitutional lawyers may not be aware of this by any legislation against a specific race then the entire race is AUTOMATICALLY excluded from being a elector and so being a member of parliament. Hence, unbeknown to most people Aboriginals cannot vote in any election of the state or Commonwealth because of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders act which actually denies them any franchise! Actually this act was all along unconstitutional as it relates to more than one race which is not permitted within subsection 51(xxvi)!
.

35

40

45

You see this is something lawyers never understood even if they call themselves constitutional lawyers.
.

50

Now lets hold that the electors are swindled into voting this time to accept that municipal/shire councils are a level of Government then the question is how with this work out and also how can this misused?
.

We have a federation so that for example external; affairs are within Commonwealth control but you find that the premier of Victoria Ted Baillieu now is setting up trade offices in other countries even so trade and commerce powers exist with the Commonwealth.
31-8-2011 Page 2 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

We have the Commonwealth interfering in environment (dont forget the proposed Carbon Tax) even so it is an internal State matter. We had the High Court of Australia making its absurd Tasmania Dam case decision totally ignorant to the fact that it had nothing to do with external affairs We have many nonsense uttered by judges of the High Court of Australia because they simply lack any proper education to be CONSTITUTIONALISTS. An example is the nonce by McHugh about being able to kill every blue-eyed baby
.

index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635 10
QUOTE 070520 posting I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion; QUOTE McHUGH J: But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. END QUOTE
.

15

What about if we alter the wording to 20 Or

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every judge killed if it wanted to. But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every politician killed if it wanted to.

Or 25 Or 30
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Aboriginal killed if it wanted to.
.

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every police officver killed if it wanted to.

You see just to alter the personality and you can get that anyone can be ordered to be killed on this line of argument. 35 With the recent High Court of Australia decision about refugees one have to question its sanity where the Privy Council in Ah Toy made clear that any state has the right to repel aliens. Therefore, we do have to consider how absurd its future ruling might be as to twist and infringe upon constitutional provisions by twisting it and concealing relevant details as it did in its 14 November 2006 WorkChoices judgment. (See my books published in the INSPECTORRIKATI series on certain constitutional and other issues about this also.
.

40

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD) A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-B&W) A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-Colour)

50
.

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-8-5

55

A warning ought to be that s96 (as it now is) was originally defeated to be included in the constitution but after the failure of passing the constitution in most colonies then at the Premier conference s96 (as it is now) became included. This section was to enable the Commonwealth to
31-8-2011 Page 3 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

provide emergency funding in case a state were to become bankrupt. It never was intended to be an all-out funding source so blackmail states to do whatever the Commonwealth demands. Constitutionally the Commonwealth cannot provide funding to municipal/shire councils because they are not a level of government. Neither can the Commonwealth provide for special funding to companies as now is being done because for this the s101 Inter-State commission was to exist and should exists despite that the Commonwealth is deceiving the electors by its ongoing conduct to not in a uniform manner provide funding to all.
.

10

Consider a Government of the day wanting to bribe a certain community, being it to store toxic waste or whatever then the Commonwealth could lure the municipal/shire council into accepting it against huge sums of moneys and so railroad the state. Currently this cannot be accomplished as such.
.

15

The Commonwealth could do whatever it wanted to get the councils on its side by handing out monies so as to undermine the States. Divide and conquer will be the aim.
.

20

Why have municipal/shire councils recognised as a level of government in the states purportedly already did so by their purported Local Government Act unless of course it has ulterior purposes!
.

25

Fancy councillors becoming a level of government then demanding the say pay as State Members of Parliament and all the perks with it. Rates may not doubt but triple, etc, and we will then get even worse with all kinds of idiotic laws as already now to have a doctor visiting for an emergency call to an address then Banyule city council may require the patient having first to obtain against $45.00 a permit for the doctor to be able to park in the street! Now who wants this kind of utter and sheer idioticy to be extended?
.

30

35

We will have councillors making even more junk trips overseas and have more costly items, like offices and staff, etc. What we should remember is that municipal/shire councils were recognised by the Framers of the constitution to represent ratepayers as companies and while state governments more and more have attempted to hijack municipal /shire councils as a level of government the truth is that it was never constitutionally valid because the States could not themselves create a fourth level of government. Yes, it would be the fourth level of government because constitutionally, regardless if people are unaware of it, the British Government is the overall level of government and with it also the European Union for so far it doesnt clash with constitutional provisions1
.

40

45

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is.
.

50

Now we are already over governed and then to add a monstrous 4 level of government would be for imbecils to consider but sanity should prevail. (O)ne has to ask what really is the purpose for municipal/shire councils to be another level of government where they would remain under the legislative of the States as they already are? Is it just to create more cost for ratepayers?
.

55

31-8-2011 Page 4 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

We now have progress associations doing most of the work that municipal/shire councils were set out to do
.

We have in the recent Global Financial Crisis many municipal/shire councils losing hundreds of millions of dollars in the USA collapse where they had invested in housing and other nonsense to which they had no legal authority to do so as municipal/shire councils should only collect rates for specific limited purposes such as garbage and other emergency issues relevant to their area.
.

10

15

20

25

In the Colosimo case the shire council issued a statement that Mr Colosimo shed was build within the provisions of the building regulations and then a week later took him to court claiming he had unlawfully build the shed. More than 20 lawyers were involved in the case and Mr Colosimo despite having a barrister then ended up going through 5 contempt cases before a Judge and also being declared mentally incompetent to look after his own financial affairs, etc. Well, after some 2 years of this rot he then decided to call me in as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and the short of the litigation is that I had the administration orders set aside as I made clear the lawyers including the doctors and the judicial officers needed a mental assessment as there was nothing wrong with Mr Colosimo as while they all held that Mr Colosimo was convicted of contempt and refused to accept the rule of law the truth was he had done no such thing, had a certificate to prove the shed was built lawfully and more over never was formally charged with contempt let alone convicted. Now this is the kind of litigation that goes on with municipal/shire councils where they are already abusing and misusing ratepayers monies for this kind of vexatious litigation. I took the case of free of charge and Mr Colosimo was able to walk away without any orders against him. Mr Colosimo survived two heart attacks he had during the litigation!
.

30

35

40

Lets be very clear about it that we have municipal/shire councils going beserk and wanting to build their kind of Taj Majhals. We had Banyule City Council spending huge amount of monies to have a $400 mill;ion diollar plus shopping centre build with all kind of idiotic provisions. IN THE END THERE WAS ONLY ONE LONE OBJECTOR, YOU GEUSS IT THAT WAS ME, AND THE ENTIRE PROJECT GORT STUCK AS I PURSUED IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Municipal/shire councils shouldnt be involved in building huge empire buildings to glorify themselves and cannot misuse and abuse ratepayers monies for all kind of handouts. We now have that municipal councils allow a councillor albeit unconstitutionally to misuse up to $10,000 in an election year! We have that councillors, again unconstitutionally, are using $20,000.00 a year for their pet projects such as giving to a football club monies to build a $10,000.00 kitchen even so monies cannot be used for this because this is not a public matter. And this while ratepayers are struggling to pay their rates! And is this also so municipal/.shire councils as a level of government then can arbitrary sell up a persons property, as now already at times is done, albeit unconstitutionally, as being a level of government they would want to exercised and abuse their powers to the limits.
.

45

We have currently the Commonwealth legislating as to ENVIRONMENT! We have currently the states legislating as to ENVIRONMENT. And we have municipal/shire councils also legislating with by-laws as to ENVIRONMENT!
.

Ok lets now consider what the Framers of the constitution stated:

.

50

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.

55

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 31-8-2011 Page 5 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE
.

10

15

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.

20

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE
.

25

From the above it must be clear that if the Commonwealth were to have legislative powers about ENVIRONMENT then the States let alone the municipal/shire councils would have no authority to legislate in regard of this.
.

30

Then again the Commonwealth never had legislative powers as to legislate as to ENVIRONMENT and the very lawyers advising the Commonwealth that it has this power obviously havent got a clue that no such federal powers exist and those are the once now advising about making municipal/shire councils a 3rd level of government not even having a clue that we already have three levels of government and so it would be a fourth level of government.
.

35

When I have to deal with morons who are making huge amount of monies with this kind of nonsense then I am not holding back as to express my views as they deserve every bit of it,.
.

40

Since shortly after federation the NSW Parliament already then purportedly amended the State constitution in 1902 to provide for a Local government not aware that constitutionally the State Government is actually the Local Government and the Federal Government is the Central Government and neither aware that its 1902 purported amendment was a constitutional nonsense!
.

45

50

55

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates 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 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 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
.

60

Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 31-8-2011 Page 6 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

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 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. END QUOTE
.

10

15

Actually what this means that any purported State constitution amendment not first approved by the electors of the State was not any valid amendment at all! Obviously those parading around as constitutional lawyers and lecturers of constitutional matters at universities never had the ability to read English despite that they pretend to do so as otherwise they wouldnt utter their utter nonsense about amended State constitutions.
.

20

25

Look at how the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to income tax and the High Court of Australia then ruled (correctly so) that it became an exclusive taxation power. Well, the same was with land taxes that when the Commonwealth created on 11 November 1910 the land Tax office then it became an exclusive power and when the commonwealth abolished the land tax legislation then the legal principle was from then on that no State could raise land taxes contrary to this because since 19010 they no longer had this legislative power. Yet, the outgoing Labor Government under Premier Kristine Keneally claimed that the power had returned to the State government, even so there is no such provision within the constitution to do so as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once appealed to Caesar then it no longer could return to the states as it became exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers.
.

30

35

40

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. END QUOTE
.

45

As such being it a power referred to the Commonwealth or a power legitimately exercised by the Commonwealth within its listed heads of legislative powers then it becomes exclusive legislative power and the States have to retire from this. Still we have some estimated $35 billion dollars in land taxes unconstitutionally raised!
.

50

Now who are those claiming to understand and comprehend the constitution that they can sit at the panel to give a sound informed judgment when they dont even know that the CPI (Consumer Price Index) limits how rates can be increased regarding pensioners and welfare recipients?
.

55

A person like myself is not getting put on a panel because I would clearly raise to many issues that the government desires to conceal! So, we get people with many proven records not to know what to do in a constitutional manner and they are to advise what should be done?
.

Consider the problems as to who can or cannot vote for a municipal/shire council if they were made a level of government as then complications may arise that a person entitled to vote for a council is not entitled to vote for the state or federal government and makes a mockery of the
31-8-2011 Page 7 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

electoral system. The current electoral provisions are different because municipal/shire councils are mere companies for essential services for the ratepayers and so councillors are so to say merely board of directors and this clearly couldnt be sustained if they were to become a level of government. Neither can you have a level of government to be a registered business and so this just wiped out any state government or even the federal government that is listed on the exchange as a business entity.
.

10

Well there is a lot more to it but for now something to think about and if anyone really wants to act credible then let them not get involved in advising from a point of sheer stupidity but let them first learn what the constitutional meanings are and what is constitutionally permissible because any amendment will affect other issues.
.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

15

20

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 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
.

25

30

35

40

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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 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 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. END QUOTE
.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE
.

45

50

As such inserting any amendment must be considered in totality how it may be as to other parts.
.

For example the previous proposed s119a would be to have it after the s116 provision and so will this mean the councils then will go bezerk upon making laws as to religions?
.

55

Dont give me the crap that councils will not act dishonourable because they already are constantly doing so just that the denials cant stomach the truth and reality.
.

QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 119 Protection of States from invasion and violence
31-8-2011 Page 8 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence. END QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
.

10

Why is it that this proposed amendment was intended to be 119A, as it appears to me the Commonwealth then can use it as an excuse that it is seeking to protect municipal/shire councils against the State. After all, if the proposed amendment was made part of s106 (as shown below) then it would prevent any interference by the Commonwealth. QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 106 Saving of Constitutions

15

20

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State. END QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
.

31-8-2011 Page 9 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The proposed amendment uses the word shall as being mandatory! Therefore State Parliament cannot prevent municipal/shire councils to be recognised as a level of government!
.

QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 101 Inter-State Commission
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. END QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
.

10

15

20

Ok, this section also uses the word shall as obligatory and guess what the Inter-State commission has not existed since 1987 as now the Prime Minister and others are rorting the system for their political agendas. Seems to me that before amending the constitution or even proposing to do so we do better to first get the understanding what is currently constitutionally applicable. Which idiot would go and buy a new car merely because the motor of his existing car doesnt work because he didnt switch on the ignition? As such how on earth can anyone propose any amendment not knowing what the current constitution stands for?
.

We have many who pursue a republic and when I ask them why often I get a response that they dont like to have a prime minister, etc. As if that is going to change with a republic! 25 Let us be clear about it the word invasion in the true meaning of the Framers of the constitution was by enemy forces but in time to come the Commonwealth may simply pursue that invasion could also include a State government and then interfere in the internal running of the State and in fact also could use it to perhaps take over a council on the basis it needs to protect the council against itself and put an administrator in place. How many fools are there who dont realise that after more than 110 years the Commonwealth still hasnt managed to even itself comply with constitutional provisions and s101 as a clear example and how it is buying up, albeit unconstitutionally, land, etc, and do you really think that the Commonwealth will be any different with being able to get its grubby hands on councils? What would then stop the Commonwealth to insist that a State acts in a certain manner against a certain council where the Commonwealth wants something that particular council opposes? When the Commonwealth proposes something you can be guaranteed that it is to expand its known powers and not because it like the colour of the eyes of councillors! . Well using the reasoning of the High Court of Australia we could always then get:
.

30

35

40
.

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every councillor killed if it wanted to.

45

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to deal with all relevant issues and details but you may get my point that for any credibility for any panel and any recommendations you need to have an actual CONSTITUTIONALIST on the panel WHO IS NOT SO TO SAY BRAINWASHED OR OTHERWISE INCAPABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND HOW ANY AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION MAY APPLY. . QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

50

Chapter VIIIAlteration of the Constitution

128 Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an
31-8-2011 Page 10 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives. But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives. When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails. And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queens assent. No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. In this section, Territory means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives. END QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
.

QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 122 Government of territories 45
The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. END QUOTE Section 128 56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
.

50

Try to understand the con-job 19967 51(xxvi) referendum and you be wise to avoid a repeat.
,.

55

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

31-8-2011 Page 11 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati