20230805-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To His Excellency General The Honourable David Hurley AC DSC

Page 1
1
2
3 His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC 5-8-2023
4 Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
5
6 C/o Office Official Secretary
7 https://www.gg.gov.au/office-official-secretary-governor-general/email-contacts
8
9 Re 20230805-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC
10
11 Dear Governor-General,
12 hereby, I request you to invoke prerogative powers to withdraw the
13 commission of all current Ministers including (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese for seeking to
14 undermine the Monarchy and by this also your position as Governor-General (and duties and
15 obligations representing the Monarch) as well as to deceptively seek to amend the constitution to
16 achieve this, etc, as set out below.
17
18 Obviously I will seek to set out below certain issues however as a self-educated constitutionalist
19 already proved to successfully pursue constitutional issues in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July
20 2006 when (unchallenged) I (representing myself) succeeded in both appeals in which I
21 successfully pursued that “compulsory” part of voting was unconstitutional as well as that
22 “Australian Citizenship” is not a ‘nationality”. On 4 December 20202 the court ordered that the
23 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS regarding “compulsory voting” and
24 “Australian citizenship” was to be heard and determined by the High Court of Australia,
25 however on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction upheld
26 both my appeals. Again, neither the Commonwealth or any of the 9 Attorney-General’s
27 challenged any of my constitutional based submissions! As such I proved to know the legal
28 principles embedded in the constitution better than all opponents!
29
30 Currently the Federal Government pursues a constitutional amendment regarding Aboriginals
31 and Torres Strait Islanders by “Voice”. The first 42+ pages even so limited still extensively deal
32 with the history of what is now known the Commonwealth of Australia, its inhabitants, legal
33 situation, etc. Only by reading the entire document can one gain some better understanding as to
34 the issues at hand.
35
36 I am aware ant you cannot become involved in “political” issues and I am not seeking you
37 to do so. However, where this matter relates to some extend to the powers of the Monarch and
38 which you represent as Governor-General then this obviously is relevant to you.
39
40 I was born and raised in The Netherlands and served in the Dutch Army, first as a conscript and
41 later as a regular, however had to reign due to ill health and migrated with my then wife and son
42 to Australia. I did not master the English language at the time and learned as I went along. My
43 interest became the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and due to my
44 lack of having sufficient knowledge of the English language I had to use dictionaries as to the
5-8-2023 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 meaning of many words. And this is why I gained a skill that I view most lawyers and those
2 calling themselves constitutional-lawyers (an oxymoron as a Firefighter-Firebug) lacks this.
3 I learned the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the
4 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as should be and not how lawyers
5 learned in legal studies they first learn in legal studies how to read legal matters and by this
6 interpret the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) regardless of embedded
7 legal principles.
8
9 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
10 Convention)
11 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
12 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
13 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
14 misconception.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
19 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
20 to understand.
21 END QUOTE
22 .
24 QUOTE
25 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting
26 Committee will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which
27 they do not understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by
28 persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
33 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
38 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position
39 which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the
40 common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to
41 be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of
42 legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is
43 the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it,
44 and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people,
45 who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for
46 weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot
47 have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on
48 both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the
49 people.
50 END QUOTE
51 .
52 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
53 QUOTE
54 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
Page 3
1 END QUOTE
2
3 I so to say was the perfect candidate to learn what the legal principles embedded in the
4 constitution was about because it was written for ma person like myself in plain English
5 language.
6
7 First some background information:
8
9 Some of those legal principles most persons would be unaware of is:
10
12 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
13 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
14 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
15 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
16 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
17 embrace and unite.
18 END QUOTE
19 And
21 QUOTE
22 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
23 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
24 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
25 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
26 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
27 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
28 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
29 END QUOTE
30 And
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
34 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
35 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
36 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
37 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
39 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
40 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
41 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
42 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
43 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
44 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
45 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
46 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 I will now quote an email I received about the history regarding habitation of what is now known
50 as Commonwealth of Australia as to clarify some issues as much as possible:
51
52 QUOTE email 25-6-2023 attachment
53 ULURU STATEMENT EXAMINED
Page 4
1 HOW CAN YOU VOTE WISELY ON THE $364.6 MILLION CONSTITUTION

2 REFERENDUM — IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS BASED ON —AND WHY?
3
4 THE ULURU STATEMENT
5 “WE, GATHERED AT THE 2017 NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,
6 COMING FROM ALL POINTS OF THE SOUTHERN SKY, MAKE THIS
7 STATEMENT FROM THE HEART:”
8 “OUR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER TRIBES WERE THE
9 FIRST SOVEREIGN NATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONTINENT AND ITS
10 ADJACENT ISLANDS, AND POSSESSED IT UNDER OUR OWN LAWS AND
11 CUSTOMS.”
12
13 NOT SO: Torres Strait Islanders are different unrelated race of structured people living in a
14 different land.
15 The aboriginals were not the first people and were never a sovereign nation. Aboriginals
16 were a warring group of tribes of no cohesive structure, unity or language, frequently
17 wiping out entire neighbouring tribes, women and children inflicting terrible atrocities to
18 take over their food areas, as recorded by pioneers and officials.
19 The Reverend E Gribble referred to them as “A DESPISED RACE” 1932:
20 Captain James Cook and Botanist Joseph Banks 1770, wrote of the Aborigines they
21 encountered as “…a naked and treacherous lot”.
22 Noted Botanist & Explorer, Allan Cunningham 1827 described them as, “….. the very
23 zero of civilization”.
24 Professor Alfred Cort Haddon, Sc.D., FRS, FRGS: Author “The Races Of Man” 1909:
25 stated, the aborigines were clearly “….. pre-Dravidian” people from South India.
26 They were not “the first sovereign nation” — neither first nor sovereign.
27 They were never “the first”: Australia, Papua-New Guinea, Indonesia and Asia were all the
28 one ancient continent of Sunda-Sahul joined by pathways of grassy plains, Australia was
29 once one-third larger where animals and humans migrated frequently. Papua New Guinea
30 has Echidnas, Kangaroos, Possums, Bandicoots, Cassowary, and more — it would have
31 taken a very, very long time for the Echidna and Cassowary to have got there — either
32 way.
33
34 They were never a nation and never “sovereign”:
35 SOVEREIGN: adjective.
36 Meaning: possessing supreme or ultimate power:
37
38 They had no cohesive government, national tribal structure, unity, rules or language.
39
40 “THIS OUR ANCESTORS DID, ACCORDING TO THE RECKONING OF OUR
41 CULTURE, FROM THE CREATION, ACCORDING TO THE COMMON LAW FROM
42 ‘TIME IMMEMORIAL’, AND ACCORDING TO SCIENCE MORE THAN 60,000
43 YEARS AGO.”
44
45 “…. the reckoning of our culture, from Creation”, is very wrong, you have only been here
46 for about 141 generation or 4,230 years. The ‘time immemorial’ is unfounded — Science
47 has now totally refuted the 60,000 years by DNA and identification of other prior races.
48 The Torres Strait Islander Meriam people of Murray Island are of Melanesian descent from
49 the Lapita people of about 30,000 years, they had cultivated food production gardens and
50 held land tenure under village law, they were people of a well-established productive
51 community; they were experienced ocean fishermen and ocean travellers between Islands
Page 5
1 who socially interacted and traded with other islanders. They are an advanced Islander
2 people of achievement, whose laws were compassionate and very protective of their
3 women, children and community.
4 These are two very different unrelated people and cultures that should not be linked
5 together under any circumstances. It is another part of aboriginal distortions instigated by
6 the white aboriginal modernists. National Geographic wrote years ago Australian
7 Aboriginals are ‘The world’s last remaining Stone Age people’ whose highest technology
8 was a stone axe. Whereas the Torres Strait Islanders were a very different race of civilised
9 achievers.
10 They are not related in any way to Aboriginals who by mtDNA are proven to have come
11 from India about 4,230 years ago. Their claim upon prior ancient people’s rock art and
12 artifacts belonging to them or their ancestors are totally false and appear another ongoing
13 fraud, they are unrelated very different races.
14 The reference “according to common law”, appears based on false hearsay and
15 dishonoured by aboriginals wanting a one-way consideration refusing to accept European
16 common law since settlement.
17
18 “THIS SOVEREIGNTY IS A SPIRITUAL NOTION:”
19
20 NOTION: noun.
21 Meaning: a vague or general idea: a theory or belief held by a person or group: an
22 inclination or whim, or a belief or impression about something.
23 SPIRITUAL: a body feeling without any material substance being belief without proof.
24
25 “THE ANCESTRAL TIE BETWEEN THE LAND, OR ‘MOTHER NATURE’, AND
26 THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLES”
27
28 Torres Strait people were a well structure society of achievers with land tenure and farming
29 practices. Remove the Torres Strait people from your claims — they stand strongly on
30 their own merits — stop trying to ride upon their higher achievement and skills of
31 structured respectful civilised society.
32 Stand on your own feet, as descendants of stone-age people who made no physical usage
33 of land, it was never cultivated or farmed, they only walked across the land to gather
34 whatever food was available, there was no land tenure or history as they had no common
35 language, concept of measured time, numeracy or literature ability.
36
37 “WHO WERE BORN THEREFROM, REMAIN ATTACHED THERETO, AND MUST
38 ONE DAY RETURN THITHER TO BE UNITED WITH OUR ANCESTORS.”
39
40 A line of pseudo feel-good philosophy — all bodies compost back into the earth.
41
42 “THIS LINK IS THE BASIS OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SOIL, OR BETTER, OF
43 SOVEREIGNTY.”
44
45 They never owned land, the old people always people said, ‘WE DO NOT OWN THE
46 LAND WE LOOK AFTER THE LAND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AS
47 CUSTODIANS’; It was never ‘sovereign’ and had no ‘sovereignty’, they were warring
48 tribal groups who killed off the previous people before them and took their land by
49 conquest only — their slaughter and mutilation of other tribes were well recorded.
50

Page 6
1 “IT HAS NEVER BEEN CEDED OR EXTINGUISHED, AND CO-EXISTS WITH THE
2 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE CROWN.”
3
4 SOVEREIGNTY: the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
5 Sovereignty never existed amongst the tribes; the very concept was unknown. Co-existence
6 was subject to kill or be killed practice as recorded by pioneers and officials.
7
8 “HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE? THAT PEOPLES POSSESSED A LAND FOR
9 SIXTY MILLENNIA AND THIS SACRED LINK DISAPPEARS FROM WORLD
10 HISTORY IN MERELY THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS?”
11
12 FALSE: It is “otherwise”: Scientific DNA examination by the Max Planck Institute of
13 Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany, proved they arrived here from India 141
14 generations ago or about 4,230 years ago.
15 Central University of Haryana Jant-Pali, India, scientific DNA studies of the M42
16 haplogroup proved they shared DNA lineage between Indians and Australian Aborigines
17 — they are the same people.
18
19 The artefacts and rock art of numerous earlier races were totally unrelated people and not
20 their ancestors. Skeletons of different structured previous races prove they were not the
21 original occupiers — Endocast skulls of prior people millions of years old exist. Forensic
22 Anthropology and Archaeology prove numerous prior races occupied Australia.
23
24 “WITH SUBSTANTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE AND STRUCTURAL
25 REFORM, WE BELIEVE THIS ANCIENT SOVEREIGNTY CAN SHINE THROUGH
26 AS A FULLER EXPRESSION OF AUSTRALIA’S NATIONHOOD.”
27
28 There was no “sovereignty”, no unity, no government only primitive stone-age people —
29 as recorded by pioneers and officials. You have never accepted democratic law of
30 nationhood, you refuse to ‘close the gap’ from lawless communities to civilised society.
31 You have given little in return for all the many billions we have given you — many do not
32 even respect civilised law.
33 The constitution recognises all Australian people equally, it does not need any change and
34 certainly not to insert a separation of the Australian people by ‘Race’. If race is to be
35 inserted into the constitution, then we must include all the races of people from the 238
36 different countries who now call Australia home, without discrimination. The very concept
37 of the ‘Voice’ referendum is seriously racists and discriminatory such being prohibited by
38 law.
39 The structural reforms needed must be implemented in your own communities first, prove
40 your worthiness by establishing a civilised, respectful, law-abiding society without
41 violence, sexual abuse, rape and gross disrespect to others within your community and to
42 all people — you are judged by what you do — or don’t do — not by fine words or theory.
43 Your first step into the future must be the education of your community and children, to
44 live decently, respectfully with the family structure, safety and wellbeing the basis of your
45 society
46
47 “PROPORTIONALLY, WE ARE THE MOST INCARCERATED PEOPLE ON THE
48 PLANET. WE ARE NOT AN INNATELY CRIMINAL PEOPLE.”
49
50 Crime, violence, theft, rape, murder, substance abuse, bad violent attitude, abusive
51 antisocial acts and behaviour in many of your societies are appalling and are the reason for
Page 7
1 incarceration showing an ‘innate criminal’ tendency does exists — You are not
2 incarcerated for being good honest decent respectful citizens obeying your communities
3 and government law — You need to understand that fact.
4 Your problem can only be removed by positively identifying the cause — only when the
5 causative factors are removed — will the problem cease. In this case the causative factors
6 are lack of education, poor home life, no self-discipline, no respect and decency to all
7 people. These matters can only be successfully resolved on a community level either by
8 consensus or by the force of law — your choice.
9
10 “OUR CHILDREN ARE ALIENED FROM THEIR FAMILIES AT UNPRECEDENTED
11 RATES.”
12
13 This happens across all culture for the same reasons — from poor community standards
14 and home life when parental teaching, guidance, education, self-discipline and respect have
15 failed both in parents and children — you created the problem — we can help resolve it
16 only if ‘YOU’ are willing to work together with a new direction and new attitude.
17 Nobody owes you anything, understand that fact — you either want to change and walk
18 together into a better future — or stay where you are in life — it’s your choice, your
19 decision — and good luck.
20
21 “THIS CANNOT BE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO LOVE FOR THEM.”
22
23 Love is an emotional guide of respect for each other, their fellow man, self-discipline and
24 education — there are no attributes of love in your violent communities.
25
26 “AND OUR YOUTH LANGUISH IN DETENTION IN OBSCENE NUMBERS. THEY
27 SHOULD BE OUR HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.”
28
29 The failure to establish a good respectful home life and environment of strong community
30 values, where self-discipline, respect for law, pride and education are disregarded —
31 ‘YOU’ are destroying the future of ‘YOUR’ children by ‘YOUR’ own acts — ‘YOU’ are
32 why they languish in detention centres in obscene numbers because ‘YOU’ failed to give
33 them a good standard of self-respect, self-discipline, guidance and education. Stop blaming
34 others for your own errors. Own up — Stand up — and — Fix it up.
35 Detention occurs across all communities for exactly the same reasons. You stupidly think
36 that a referendum title will solve your problems, you made the problems and lawlessness
37 yourself — a referendum title will not encourage you to improve, it will only lock
38 lawlessness into acceptance.
39
40 “THESE DIMENSIONS OF OUR CRISIS TELL PLAINLY THE STRUCTURAL
41 NATURE OF OUR PROBLEM. THIS IS THE TORMENT OF OUR
42 POWERLESSNESS.”
43
44 “These dimensions” are disrespect of law, family and education.
45 “The structural nature of our problem”, are well identified, do something about it, get
46 motivated and stop expecting others to solve the problems of ‘YOUR’ own making, stop
47 your parasitic attitude expecting others to carry you. Awareness is useless unless ‘YOU’ do
48 something about it, get motivated, get results — stop the disregard of law.
49 “This is the torment of our powerlessness”, ‘YOU’ are only powerless because ‘YOU’
50 choose to be. No one gives you power or authority, ‘YOU’ stand up and take it — and use
51 it wisely — as your elders once did.
Page 8
1
2 “WE SEEK CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS TO EMPOWER OUR PEOPLE AND
3 TAKE A RIGHTFUL PLACE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.”
4
5 Words written in a constitution will do nothing to change your attitudes — you are your
6 own problem.
7 There needs a big attitude change starting by reforms to your own communities, empower
8 your people and children to take a rightful place in your own communities first. Set an
9 exemplary standard of community involvement of high family standards of decency,
10 respect and education. Stop the high levels of criminality, rape, disrespect of women and
11 children, stop the substance abuse, theft, rude filthy language and contemptuous disrespect.
12 When you have achieved a high standard for your own communities and get your own
13 house in order — then step forward with pride and achievement where you will be held in
14 high regard across the land having established a future direction for your children’s future.
15 You get respect and success from what you do, not from a word written in a constitution —
16 words will not change your thinking or your heart.
17
18 “WHEN WE HAVE POWER OVER OUR DESTINY OUR CHILDREN WILL
19 FLOURISH. THEY WILL WALK IN TWO WORLDS AND THEIR CULTURE WILL
20 BE A GIFT TO THEIR COUNTRY.”
21
22 You have always had power over your own destiny but many preferred a parasitic
23 existence, substance abuse and laziness, you forgot to lift your thinking from your
24 ancestor’s stone-age attitude into the future offered to you by the modern world. You chose
25 to walk in the past — You forgot your ancestors had traditional pride and respect, that
26 required self-discipline, self-respect and toughness — You chose to leave that behind and
27 disintegrate into the lawless mess of so many of your communities. The same self-
28 discipline, self-respect and toughness of your ancestor are needed across all people to be
29 good parents, teachers and achievers in life. The lawless disintegration of your
30 communities for decades has seen a corresponding loss of you culture your current
31 generation have no interest in.
32
33 “WE CALL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FIRST NATIONS VOICE
34 ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.”
35
36 You are not the “First Nations” people, many others lived here long before your time —
37 accept that fact and live in reality.
38 The elders acknowledge the rock art being painted “By the people before our time began”.
39 Your Uluru Statement is not of substance to be included in a nation’s constitution.
40 It is the words of pseudo intellectuals that does not in any way represent Aboriginal
41 Australia.
42 It is nothing more than the basis for a struggling community coming to terms with their
43 internal failures. that need a reality starting point to restructure their own goals and
44 objectives as a written community directive to be achieved in unison. That must eventuate
45 first and foremost before you can move forward.
46
47 “MAKARRATA IS THE CULMINATION OF OUR AGENDA: THE COMING
48 TOGETHER AFTER A STRUGGLE. IT CAPTURES OUR ASPIRATIONS FOR A
49 FAIR AND TRUTHFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA AND
50 A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN BASED ON JUSTICE AND SELF-
51 DETERMINATION.”
Page 9
1
2 For a “truthful relationship” you need to stop your “First Nations” fantasy, you were never
3 the first to occupy Australia.
4 You expect us to believe by some mysterious means you regularly patrolled the coastline
5 and kept all others out for millions of years?
6 Your aspirations must come from within your own communities first, only ‘YOU’ can
7 change your direction in life to a respectful law-abiding community. When that is achieved
8 with respect for each other, minimal incarceration and education for your children, you can
9 become an exemplary community — you have to achieve greatness and respect within
10 your own community first.
11 Violence, substance abuse, rape of women and children has no place and no friends —
12 Only when your community is worthy of respect and friendship — Will it will be given by
13 your own people and the people of Australia.
14
15 “ASPIRATIONS FOR A FAIR AND TRUTHFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
16 PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA AND A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN”.
17
18 Will only be achieved by your own truthfulness, when you reject the blatant distortions of
19 your own history from listening to rubbish distortions by the ‘white indigenous invaders’
20 and their concocted ‘New Understanding’ of history — over the wise words of your old
21 people are shameful. Sadly, most traditions were abandoned over a century ago, they are
22 lost and can never be recovered — therefor your community need a complete re-
23 assessment of future direction. Gather the old wise ones, ask their advice, blend it with
24 your own modern knowledge and current laws, listen only to wise achievers and never
25 fools or the greedy.
26 Take a deep breath of fresh air, look to the east at the rising sun, let that be your guide for a
27 new beginning of life, a new direction for your children and community. Open a new page
28 of life and together write a new rule book, a new direction, a road map for your people —
29 with no ‘stop signs’. You set the new direction you want to take — make it the envy of all
30 others, walk forward with self-esteem and you own power from within — that everyone
31 will respect and admire.
32
33 “WE SEEK A MAKARRATA COMMISSION TO SUPERVISE A PROCESS OF
34 AGREEMENT-MAKING BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND FIRST NATIONS AND
35 TRUTH-TELLING ABOUT OUR HISTORY.”
36
37 These words epitomise your failure to accept reality, you are not the nation’s first people
38 and do not understand nor accept “truth-telling” of history. You live in delusions of untruth
39 and deceit to yourself, family and your own community.
40 Your community standard of criminality excludes you from general acceptance, these
41 lawless disrespectful communities reflect badly upon all the good aboriginal communities
42 — you shame the decades of hard work and success of many others before you. You need
43 to display achievement in “a process of agreement-making”, in your own communities
44 first.
45 “Truth-telling” is non-existent in most communities, it is only a few of the old remaining
46 people that tell the truth, the rest are distortions of the ‘white indigenous invaders’ with
47 their ‘new’ understanding of dollar dominated distorted history forced upon the old folk
48 and fed to children creating animosities and bad attitudes.
49 The term “truth-telling” is preceded by dishonesty, you are aboriginals from India are not
50 and never were the first people of this nation. Despite the Victorina government’s apparent
51 attempt to have all previous skeletons destroyed and removal of records. There are
Page 10
1 photographs, forensic Anthropology, Archaeology and proven Scientific DNA that

2 establish hard irrefutable evidence of many races having lived here over Millenia long
3 before current Indians claiming aboriginal status. The ancient endocast skulls millions of
4 years old tell an untold story of Hominid evolution. Have a DNA blood test like Ernie
5 Dingo that showed Indian ancestors.
6 The old people tell their stories of “The people before their time began”, of the tiny ‘giro
7 giro’ people who painted the Wandjina rock art, the ‘Little People of the Rainforest’ are
8 held on photographs. In 265 AD and in the 1400’s and 1500’s, Ships Captains recorded
9 little people one-metre-high, as did early explorers.
10 The Tasmania Aboriginals were Papuans with frizzy hair; the Gwion Gwion rock art
11 were painted by African San people, Mungo man was a gracile Asian, the Flat-Head
12 skulls are from an unknown Hominid ancestry, Kow Swamp and Coobool Creek
13 robust people were modern Homo erectus — the evidence is written in artifacts and
14 skeletons all over Australia. You are NOT the nation’s first people.
15
16 The ancient endocast skulls are from at least three different lineages, one was filled with
17 volcanis ash when wet sets like concrete, thus dating the skull — buried in 10 million year
18 old volcanic ash, dated by the NSW Department of Geophysical Survey.
19 You are not and never were the nations first people, your ancestors arrived from India
20 about 4,230 years or 141 generations ago and killed the previous race of people that lived
21 here, taking their land. You wrongly claim their artifacts, rock art and skeletons of prior
22 unrelated people as your acestors to fraudulently claim their history and land. You
23 dishonsty negates you claims.
24
Page 11
1 “IN 1967 WE WERE COUNTED, IN 2017 WE SEEK TO BE HEARD.”

2
3 “In 1967 we were counted” — Is just more misunderstood nonsense twisted and used as
4 PR to mislead the public. Proving the Uluru statemen is not based on fact but on theoretical
5 sympathy gathering baloney unfit as the basis of referendum inclusion.
6 The population number is what decides the size of electorates and number of MPs, plus the
7 need for police, schools, hospitals and services. It had nothing to do with census figures.
8 INDIGENOUS RECOGNITION AND CONSTITUTIONAL MYTHS. by Helen Irving.
9 Quote: The Aboriginal people have always been counted, from the very first
10 Commonwealth census in 1911. In fact, census statistics specifically recorded the
11 populations of Aboriginal Australians. “Half-blood” Aborigines were considered to be
12 white and were included in the general census.
13 The purpose of section 127 was to guide the calculation of the numbers of parliamentary
14 representatives per State and also to determine certain State financial entitlements and
15 obligations, based on State populations. Unquote.
16
17 QUADRANT, Peter O’Brien, 4 May 2023:
18 Quote: Section 51(xxvi) did not exclude Aborigines from the Commonwealth or the
19 Constitution. It merely excluded them from the class of people for whom the
20 Commonwealth could make special laws, because that was the responsibility of the states.
21
22 Aborigines in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania could vote in colonial
23 elections before 1901 and, by virtue of Section 41 of the Constitution, they could vote in
24 Commonwealth elections. Aboriginals could vote if they registered. In 1962 – before the
25 1967 referendum – the Commonwealth legislated to extend the vote to any Aborigine who
26 did not already have it (already registered), demonstrates clearly that Aborigines were not
27 excluded from the Constitution before 1967. Unquote.
28
29 “In 2017 we seek to be heard” — Really: There are 10 indigneous MP’s in Canberra. In
30 2020 there were 3,273 registered Aboriginal Corporations, delivering health and other
31 services, and making representations to governments. More than 1,000 bureaucrats work
32 in the National Indigenous Australians Agency costing many millions of allocated
33 taxpayers money.
34 The aboriginal organizations receive hundreds of millions of dollars from mining royalties
35 every year. More than 230 million dollars in the NT alone. Taxpayer now provide of $39
36 billion dollars a year on Aboriginals, more than is spent on Medicare.
37 To claim they are not heard is total concocted, distorted baloney — It is Australia’s biggest
38 lie.
39
40 You are over-represented, over-heard and over-funded. National expenditure is about
41 $44,900 per indigenous Australian and around $24,000 for non-indigenous Australian —
42 Where has your money gone, wasted, misappropriated or stolen? ATSIC and others under
43 aboriginal management totally failed due to ineptness and misappropriation, wasting
44 millions.
45
46 You have been heard loudly with land claims to 75.8% of Australia, with governments
47 accepting and promoting your concocted BS ’Welcome to Country’ invented by Ernie
48 Dingo and Richard Whalley, of the ‘Middar Aboriginal Theatre’ in 1976 because two
49 pairs of Maori visitors from NZ and the Cook Islands wanted an equivalent of their own
50 traditional ceremony before they would dance at the Perth International Arts Festival.

Page 12
1 Worst of all we are insulted and infuriated by this being read on ANZAC DAY and official
2 functions.
3 We will not be welcomed to OUR own country and we will not tolerate anyone welcoming
4 the memories and souls of our ANZAC service men and women to their homeland.
5 This is an insulting rude intrusion into the memories of our heroes. We do not tolerate
6 invented rubbish intruding into our sacred day of memories — the gullible stupidity of
7 some in government is appalling.
8 Indigenous former NT Minister for Community Services, Bess Price said, 'All
9 the "Welcome to Country", all the "Smoking Ceremonies" and all the made-up bullshit
10 rituals about "pay our respects to elders past and present" is just one big lie.
11 YOU have been heard loudly and clearly — YOUR distortions of history are heard clearly
12 — They are no basis to corrupt our Constitution as a vehicle for extended parasitic grabs of
13 political control, more land and taxpayers’ money.
14 If you want to be heard — then speak your truth quietly and clearly — listen to the old
15 people and others, for they too have their knowledge.
16 What are the other agendas that require a retrograde insertion of ‘Race’ into the
17 constitution? The reason is hidden in the words the PM refused to reveal or discuss — but
18 revealed in the ABC interview with Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus “There were other
19 elements of aboriginal requirements of truth telling and treaty, but they come next, they
20 come after ‘The Voice’ is put into our constitution”.
21 Got it — After the ‘Yes’ vote — Not before.
22 Pay for it first, then open the box to see what you brought — Come in sucker.
23 Does the government identify a high level of stupidity and ignorance exists in the
24 community sufficient to pass the ‘Yes’ vote — Are you one of them? Is that why the PM
25 will not disclose details, he is relying on your stupidity to trust him — Honest-Anthony is
26 selling you a new car without an engine or gearbox — they come later.
27 The basis of the façade are the groups wanting the words ‘Sovereigns State’ inserted after
28 it is passed, most would not see the legal implications. “…… they come next, they come
29 after ‘The Voice’ is put into our constitution”. Sovereign State’s will have boundaries
30 upheld by law and fully funded by the stupid people who voted ‘YES’ — funds taken from
31 your hospital, ambulances, health and education. Some groups are pushing for all non-
32 aboriginal people to pay a financial tax levy to the ‘Sovereign States, for stealing their
33 land.
34 If there is not enough money, we pay more taxes and higher GST.
35 The ‘YES’ billions will become very expensive monolithic bureaucracy. With no
36 identifiable benefits to anyone — and no way out — without another $364.6 million
37 referendum to nullify the first one. The cost of a new hospital.
38 There will be no legal right of access or journey across sovereign states, you will be locked
39 out — unless you pay a fee: The test areas have been established under native title, where
40 you get fined for trespass.
41 Mt Warning
42 Near Murwillumbah there are guards on duty to arrest and prevent entry onto land the
43 original elders a century ago said had free access to all Australians — The ‘white
44 indigenous invades’ new-understanding’ of invented history is it’s a men’s only sacred
45 site, then how do they explain tribal occupation of women and girls living there? And these
46 unfounded lies are upheld by ignorant governments.
47
48 Githabul elder Harry Boyd, Ngarakwal elder Marlene Boyd, Wijabul elder Fletcher
49 Roberts and Gilbert King stood in my garden looking at Mt Warning proudly saying “The
50 land belonged to everyone to climb, explore and enjoy” — “Aboriginal land does not
51 belong to anyone, we do not own the land — it is held in trust by us for our children and
Page 13
1 their children’s future”. The words were once spoken by old aboriginal elders all across
2 Australia in previous years, long before the birth of those now wrongly claiming land
3 ownership and making land claims— in denial of tribal custodianship law.
4 Clearly ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is discarded as a tenure of justice.
5 North Stradbroke Island
6 December 2019, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk visited Stradbroke for a
7 ceremony to formally hand over land deeds for 6,400 hectares — almost 24 per cent
8 of the island — back to traditional owners.
9 Today families who wish to walk across this land to the beach to go for a swim or fishing
10 can be prosecuted for trespass as with all the other land handed over to aboriginals across
11 Australia.
12 Stockton Beach
13 Mr Geoff Walker, advised — Up my way they 'own' Stockton beach, a 20-mile strip of
14 sand between Newcastle and Pt. Stephens. At Easter they (Aboriginals) sit at the 4WD
15 entrance and charge $20 per vehicle. They make countless thousands as city people flock
16 to the place.
17 Has GST been paid on these entry fees and where is the accounting records and bank
18 accounts?
19 Grampian in Victoria, Uluru in NT etc.
20
21 “WE LEAVE BASE CAMP AND START OUR TREK ACROSS THIS VAST
22 COUNTRY. WE INVITE YOU TO WALK WITH US IN A MOVEMENT OF THE
23 AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE FOR A BETTER FUTURE.”
24
25 Nice feel-good PR falsities, this is not unity but a ‘division-by-race’ you are invited to join
26 and vote for.
27 It is a hidden deceit to achieve a goal of taxpayer funded dominance over our Australia via
28 land title transfer, where there are claims to 62.7% of Australia — the Voice referendum
29 extensions admitted by the Attorney-General will see the end of Australian freedoms as we
30 know it today and the democratic independent function of parliament — possibly
31 subservient to high court control of legislation.
32 Learned Judges, Terrence Cole former judge of the NSW Court of Appeals who presided
33 over two Royal commissions and Ian Callinan AC, former Justice of the High Court of
34 Australia and others, strongly advise against a ‘Yes’ vote as few understand the destructive
35 implications at law.
36 This ‘Uluru Statement’ appears more of a community forward goal blaming everyone else
37 for its own lawless failings and not wanting to accept its own responsibility for the
38 situation it is in — and open to use by the ALP for socialist dominance via a back door
39 entry into the constitution.
40 The confused wording of the Uluru statement bringing the PM to tears appears he is lost in
41 a wilderness beyond reality — the was nothing tear-worthy.
42 THIS DOES NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL SUBSTANCE.
43 WHEN IN DOUBT — DON’T.
44 Good luck everybody if you vote for ‘The Voice’, there are endless future years to regret at
45 your leisure as you pay billions more in higher taxes and GST — that should be going to
46 health, ambulances, hospitals and you children’s education.
47 Data extracted from a soon to be released book ‘The ‘UNKNOWN’ History of Australia’.
48

Page 14
1
2 Schedule_and_Determinations_map.jpg (3308×2339) (nntt.gov.au)
3 END QUOTE email 25-6-2023 attachment
4
5 I intent below to go more into the Voice issue for it is to undermined the Monarch and so you as
6 representative of the Monarch constitutional powers but first let consider what the High Court of
7 Australia in the MABO case did set out!
8
9 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html
10 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) ("Mabo case") [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992)
11 QUOTE
12 Aborigines - Native title to land - Whether extinguished by annexation by Crown -
13 Reception of common law in Australia - Effect on native title - Terra nulius - Whether
14 doctrine applicable in Australia.
15 Constitutional Law (Q.) - Reception of common law in settled colony - Effect on title of
16 indigenous people - Annexation of territory by colony - Terra nullius - Whether doctrine
17 applicable in Australia - Power of Parliament of Qeensland to extinguish native title.
18 Real Property - Tenures and estates - Application on settlement of New South Wales -
19 Effect on native title - Land over which native title exists - Whether Crown land - Land
20 Act 1962 (Q.), s. 5 - "Crown land."
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Not uncommon I heard certain persons claiming that Captain Cook invaded what was then
24 known as New Holland and so without the Monarch consent, etc.
25
26 History however appears to indicate that this was a different issue while for example Australia
27 Day may be celebrated as to Captain Cook declaring New Holland to be subject to the British
28 Crown, reality was it was not what many appear to claim an invasion by white settlement.
29
30 The Dutch had many expeditions to what was previously known as the Southern Land but in
31 1606 renamed New Holland (The Netherlands was generally known as “Holland” in view that
32 Dutch ships generally came from the provinces Noord Holland & Zuid Holland).
33 New Zealand was named after the Dutch province ‘Zeeland”.
34
35 http://www.vochistory.org.au/voyages.html
36 Voyages - VOC Historical Society
Page 15
1 1606, Captain Willem Janszoon in the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC) ship Duyfken landed ... He called
2 the western part of the new continent "New Holland".
3
4 Actually, the whole part of the land mass now known as Australia became known as New
5 Holland!
6
7 1756
8 The ships Rijder, with Captain Jean Gonzal, and Buis, with Captain Lavienne Lodewijk van Asschens,
9 further explored the Gulf of Carpentaria making landfall a number of times.
10
11 https://www.vochistory.org.au/vergulde.html
12 QUOTE
13 On the night of the 28th of April 1656 the VOC ship Vergulde Draeck (also known as Gilt Dragon) under the
14 command of Pieter Albertszoon ran onto a reef off the coast of Western Australia about mid-way between
15 what are now the towns of Seabird and Ledge Point. The site is about 100 kms north of Perth.
16
17 The ship had a complement of 193 crew and passengers on board. Only 75 of them made it on to the shore of the
18 mainland.
19 A crew of 7 sailed to Batavia (now Jakarta in Indonesia) in a small sailing boat to report the wreck and to get help for the
20 survivors. The journey took 6 weeks. Including the Captain, 68 survivors stayed behind to survive as best they could in
21 pre-colonial Western Australia. . . . . . .
22
23 On 4 October 1655 the VOC (Dutch East Indies Company) ship Vergulde Draeck of the Amsterdam Chamber sailed
24 from Texel in the Netherlands on her second voyage bound for the East Indies (now Indonesia). She was carrying, apart
25 from passengers and crew, cargo, trade goods and silver coins worth 185,000 guilders. She reached the Cape of Good
26 Hope on 9 March 1656 and four days later set sail for Batavia. She never reached her destination. . . . . . . Having
27 adopted the Brouwer route, ie. followed the Roaring Forties east from the Cape, but obviously miscalculating his easting
28 and possibly the latitude, Captain Pieter Albertszoon drove her onto a reef off the western coast of the Southland between
29 the present day towns of Seabird and Ledge Point in Western Australia on 28 April 1656.
30
31 On striking the reef the Vergulde Draeck burst open and only a few provisions were saved. When the 75 survivors had
32 gathered ashore Albertszoon decided to send a party of sailors to Batavia, in the one schuyt (small boat) which had been
33 saved from the wreck, to report the tragedy and ask for a rescue vessel to be sent. Albertszoon decided to stay with the
34 survivors and to appoint his under steersman (second officer) Abraham Leeman to lead the party of 7. He was probably
35 influenced in his decision by the events following the wrecking of the Batavia on the Abrolhos Islands some 27 years
36 earlier. On that occasion senior officers abandoned the survivors to sail to Batavia, leaving many survivors to be killed by
37 mutineers. (See Batavia's Graveyard)
38 The experiences of the rescue ships with inclement weather along the coast of the Southland, convinced Governor-
39 General Maetsuijker (see picture right) in Batavia, that June and July were not the best months for rescue missions. Still
40 concerned about the fate of the survivors, the next expedition was mounted during the summer.
41
42 On New Year's Day 1658 the fluit Waeckende Boei and the galjoort Emmeloort, under the command of Captains Samuel
43 Volkersen and Aucke Pieters Jonck respectively, left Batavia in search of survivors of the Vergulde Draeck and the lost
44 11 crew from the Goede Hoop. They were instructed to rescue survivors and to salvage as much merchandise - especially
45 coins - as possible and to chart the coast carefully. Furthermore, they were to find out if the land was inhabited and, if so,
46 to try and establish trade with the inhabitants.
47 They were also instructed to take formal possession of all the places they discovered.
48 Volkerson and Jonck were unequal to the task. Not long into the voyage Volkerson complained that the Emmeloort was
49 too slow and he was having difficulty keeping the vessels together. On February 14 they separated and acted
50 independently although they met up on several occasions on the coast of the Southland.
51
52 The Emmeloort sighted the Southland on 24 February 1658 at 33° 12' S - at about Bunbury - and then sailed north
53 charting the coast. On March 8 at about 30° 25' S fires were seen on the shore. Next day a boat was sent ashore late in the
54 day to discover that the fires had been extinguished. Next day another search party was dispatched and they met up with a
55 group of aborigines who had been responsible for the fires. The party also reported seeing crops of grain growing and
56 land under cultivation. However, no traces of survivors and wreckage of ships was found. The Emmeloort slowly sailed
57 north and reached Batavia on 18 March 1658.
58 END QUOTE
59
60 The Dutch who were shipwrecked assimilated with local Aboriginal tribes and even now their
61 DNA can be traced back to the Dutch sailors. Indeed, in Western Australia (as it is now known)
62 many Aboriginals are also of Dutch descent and many have blond hair, etc, and copper colour
63 skin as I understand it due to the mixture of skin pigmentation. The Dutch captain being the Law
Page 16
1 on a ship did bring Dutch law into New Holland and then subsequently “They were also
2 instructed to take formal possession of all the places they discovered.”. As such, it was not
3 that there was any invasion as many purport to have eventuated but that Dutch law then existed
4 in new Holland!
5
6 The British as I understand it would go to a Dutch colony and simply take it over for the British
7 Crown as appears Captain Cook with New Holland did albeit without any formal declaration to
8 outlaw Dutch law. What eventuated was that as I understand it Captain Cook simply landed in
9 what is now NSW and declared it to be under the British Crown, even so way back in 1658 New
10 Holland was already declared under Dutch law. In that sense both Dutch law and British law
11 may be deemed to have coexisted.
12 Dutch Law did not provide for any recognition of ‘land rights’ and as such whatever “Terra
13 nulius” claim there may have been existing the High Court of Australia as to my readings
14 omitted to refer to Dutch law since at least 1658 existing.
15
16 The High Court of Australia in its MABO judgment clearly did not refer to Dutch law existing
17 and/or having been extinguished, but there can be no doubt that it did exist. The instructions the
18 Dutch Captains did get was to trade with natives and claim formal possession of the land.
19 As such, the Dutch not only lived in New Holland but also traded with Aboriginals and took
20 possession of New Holland.
21 Hence, the British by way of Captain Cook did not invade New Holland being Aboriginal
22 territory rather claimed the Dutch New Holland as its own. Hence, January 26 is not a date of
23 any invasion at all, this as the Dutch already lived with and amongst Aboriginals and their
24 descendants continue to live in what is now called Commonwealth of Australia.
25
27 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
28 We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies
29 to the whole-have no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us
30 the possession of the soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case
31 in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 For constitutional purposes “Aboriginals” referred to in Ss51(xxvi) included “Torres Strait
35 Islanders”, this as the Framers of the constitution referred to Queensland annexation and the need
36 to have any land rights to be sorted out by Queensland before federation!
37
38 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html
39 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) ("Mabo case") [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992)
40 QUOTE
41 Although the Murray Islands, prior to their annexation to Queensland in 1879, were not
42 part of her Majesty's dominions, Imperial and Colonial authorities were concerned for the
43 maintenance of order in, and the protection of the indigenous inhabitants of, those Islands
44 and other islands in the Western Pacific.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 This bring the complication that the “Murray Islands” were not part of the Dutch claims, but
48 were annexed by Queensland in 1879 and as such the High Court of Australia in that regard
49 couldn’t have referred the MABO case to the Australian mainland. Therefore MABO was
50 incorrectly applied to the Australian mainland!
51
52 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigendom (OWNERSHIP)
Page 17
1 QUOTE
2 Legal[edit | edit source text]
3 Antiquity, Middle Ages and Enlightenment[edit | edit source text]
4 The ways in which possession, ownership and transfer of ownership are regulated have taken
5 many different forms since ancient times. The code of the Babylonian king Hammurabi from
6 around 1750 BC. Chr. has a rule for acquisition of ownership by statute of limitations. An
7 example from Roman law is the mancipatio. There was no private property with Germanic
8 tribes, everything belonged to the tribe so if someone died it was not necessary to divide the
9 inheritance.
10 In England, the Magna Carta was established in 1215 where the administration of justice and
11 property were enshrined as the two most important fundamental rights. In the early Middle
12 Ages, the Netherlands, like the whole of Europe north of the Alps, had a widespread
13 system of common use by small farmers of the property of a large landowner such as the
14 church, king, duke or count. In this way, the inhabitants of a larger village or city could
15 be provided with food, clothing and footwear. Concepts such as the brink and the meent
16 date from that time. The ideas of the great writers of the Enlightenment led to a general
17 scepticism towards common ownership. In the Netherlands, this meant that common
18 property is not included in the Civil Code. [1]
19 For a long time, large groups of people were excluded in several cultures when it came
20 to the right to property, such as women, foreigners and serfs. In the Netherlands,
21 married women could not acquire property independently until 1957, in Belgium until
22 1958.
23 Napoleonic law[edit | edit source text]
24 La propriété est le droit de jouir et disposer des choses de la manière la plus absolue,
25 pourvu qu'on n'en fasse pas un usage prohibé par les lois ou par les règlements.
26 (Property is the right to enjoy and dispose of a property in the most absolute manner,
27 provided that it is not used contrary to the laws or regulations.)
28 Article 544 French Civil Code (Art. 544 Belgian Old Civil Code (1804), Art. 625 Dutch
29 Civil Code (1838)).
30 END QUOTE
31
32 There are several important issues:
33  The Captain Pieter Albertszoon with others amounted to 75 of the 193 persons who
34 made it to land. As the Captain is the law, then his arrival on land means that he took
35 Dutch law onto what was New Holland (Australia).
36  Also “They were also instructed to take formal possession of all the places they
37 discovered.”.
38  Also: “The party also reported seeing crops of grain growing and land under
39 cultivation.”
40  Within Dutch law at the time, property belong to the community, the state
41
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the
45 protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the
46 Constitution:
47 END QUOTE
48
49 This whole Voice exercise is no more but to deceive Australian electors as to be able to use this
50 (registered organisation) Voice for ulterior purposes so as to create states to be deemed
51 ‘Apartheid States’ where only Aboriginals can enter and reside. That I understand is the aim by
52 Thomas Mayo. A BLACK STATE that is governed by Aboriginals exclusively.
Page 18
1
2 Why on earth did some 3 former High Court of Australia judges refer to “sovereignty” issue
3 when constitutionally every Australia has sovereign rights? Is it because the hidden agenda is to
4 create a separate sovereign entity within the Commonwealth of Australia? After, all I view the
5 High Court of Australia betrays Australians big time in Sue v Hill and so may do so again
6 regardless that it may constitute TREASON!
7
8 I already had the impression that the real hidden purpose using the registered Voice registered
9 corporation is to create a BLACK STATE and Senator Pauline Hanson appears to have
10 understood the same.
11 The Voice committee need to do no more but to advise the Federal Government it desire to have
12 a ‘BLACK STATE’ created and the Federal Government then will put before the Parliament
13 some Bill to provide for this by circumventing any constitutional restrictions perhaps claiming
14 that the Voice referendum cleared the path for this. After all, it appears to me that even the
15 Attorney-General lacks a proper understanding of what the constitution stands for and so more
16 than likely most Members of Parliament will likely neither have a proper understanding of the
17 true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
18
19 Currently the reported $34 to $39 billion a year being spent on Aboriginal issues I view is
20 unconstitutional as Ss51(xxvi) doesn’t provide for this and otherwise Aboriginals are to be equal
21 in;
22 Health
23 Education
24 Jobs
25 Housing
26 as any other Australian.
27
28 The nonsense that Voice is not a “race’ issue cannot be maintained this as Ss51(xxvi) clearly
29 provides for Aboriginals to be a “race” and you cannot have contradictory meanings in the one
30 constitution! In my view Senator Pauline Hanson is right on the ball about this BLACK STATE
31 issue and I view ACMA should deal with this FactCheckers misleading/deceptive conduct so
32 often published!
33 Again:
34 What was claimed
35 The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would give the federal government the power to form
36 new states.
37 Our verdict
38 Misleading. The Australian constitution already gives Parliament the power to create new
39 states. The Voice would not change those powers.
40
41 The wording “Our verdict” cannot be deemed to express a mere “opinion” but a conclusion
42 which I view is without legal merits.
43 While the Parliament (not the Government itself) can currently create new states it is however
44 limited to do so within the legal principles embedded in the constitution to be UNIFORM in
45 applications, and this is what Voice seeks to circumvent as it is pursuing a communist system (as
46 acknowledged by Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid, the creators of Voice) by the Parliament then
47 claiming to use Voice as to create any BLACK STATE(s)!
48
49 The Framers of the Constitution did make clear:
50
52 QUOTE
Page 19
1 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the
2 Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
3 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this
4 colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who
5 are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
6 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
7 aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
8 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
9 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they
10 ought not to be deducted.
11 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
12 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in
13 reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals
14 vote.
15 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
16 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this
17 matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita,
18 if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay,
19 whilst if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
20 Clause, as read, agreed to.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 The 1967 S51(xxvi) amendment actually did not give the Commonwealth any rights as to
24 overrule the States to exclude any race from their franchise (voting rights). The truth is that first
25 of all in the 1950’s then the Federal Government was advised that to amend Ss51(xxvi) was the
26 wrong vehicle to use because of its baggage. It was then not proceeded with, however, in 1967 it
27 was. Because the High Court of Australia min violation of the legal principle embedded in the
28 constitution:
29
31 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
32 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the
33 observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of
34 misconception.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 litigation before the High Court of Australia and elsewhere eventuated without being permitted
38 to use the Hansard records. Numerous judgments as such miscarried, many still continued to be
39 used even now. This is also why the 1967 Ss1967 miscarried because electors were denied to
40 know the truth of the meaning, purposes and application of this Ss51(xxvi)! No land right issues
41 were part of the constitution, this as all Australians were deemed to be equal!
42
43 What this underlines is that the Framers of the Constitution held that Aboriginals were in fact
44 equal to other Australians and should NOT be regarded as a race to be discriminated against, but
45 for the sake to get the colonies to vote for the proposed Commonwealth of Australia
46 Constitution Bill it was held better to exclude Aboriginals from counting (Section 127) as to
47 minimize the monies the newly created States would have to pay upon federation. As such, the
48 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum was a con-job referendum because as it was not to give Aboriginal
49 more rights but in fact to rob them of certain rights they already had from the States and worse to
50 be able now the Commonwealth to DISCRIMINATE against them as some “inferior”,
51 “coloured” “alien” “race”!
52
Page 20

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
4 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
5 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation
6 with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
7 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general
8 community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth.
9 If it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning
10 of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do
11 that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it
12 means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it
13 should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if
14 any particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known
15 instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get
16 hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to
17 Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it
18 will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
19 confines of Victoria at all.
20 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
21 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put
22 them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the
23 whole community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it
24 is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from
25 passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
26 that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
27 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was
28 to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior
29 races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the
30 Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the
31 Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens,
32 which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth,
33 and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all
34 those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
35 Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration,
36 but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for
37 them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such
38 laws.
39 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
40 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
41 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
42 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
43 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Again
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
49 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 How absurd to place Aboriginals equal to “aliens and immigration”?
Page 21
1 How absurd to place Australian natural born Australians of Aboriginals descent to be equal to
2 any “inferior”, “coloured” “alien” “race”!
3
4 What this means is that any legislation in favour of any “race” cannot be used against the
5 “general community”
6
8 QUOTE
9 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
10 the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
11 we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
12 Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
13 exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
14 legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
15 will have arisen.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
21 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
22 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
23 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
24 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
25 but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
26 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
27 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
28 meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
29 I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
30 dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we
31 introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and
32 those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision,
33 and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore,
34 it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
35 possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
36 exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
37 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
38 want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
39 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
40 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
41 Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
42 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
43 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
44 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
45 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
46 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
47 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
48 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
49 and so on.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 Again: “except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as
53 aliens, and so on.”
Page 22
1
2 What the Framers of the Constitution made clear was that once the Commonwealth commenced
3 to legislate against any particular “race” then they would no longer be entitled to vote as they
4 would lose their “citizenship” (their right to vote) this obviously to prevent this “race” to seek to
5 abolish this legislation. When then the Commonwealth commenced to legislate against
6 Aboriginals that effectively denied them “citizenship”! As such, Ss51(xxvi) did not give them
7 any rights but rather robbed them of it when there was any legislation against them.
8
9 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was drafted upon that there was
10 no land rights applicable. Had the Framers of the Constitution held that land rights were
11 applicable it could have provided for this in the constitution.
12
13 https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
14 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
15 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the
16 Constitution are within the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority,
17 sovereign States, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and
18 the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or implied. Where, therefore, the
19 Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the Commonwealth, the
20 Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
21 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Does this then mean that the Commonwealth can unrestricted legislate within Ss51(xxvi)
25 regarding Aboriginals? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
26
27 It must be clear that Ss51(xxvi) was designed at federation for the Commonwealth to
28 DISCRIMINATE against a particular “race”, albeit not Aboriginals and Maori’s, and any such
29 law could not be used against the “general community”.
30
31 Meaning that when the 1967 referendum Ss51(xxvi) was held to amend the constitution it was
32 about “Aboriginals” and not other races, and as such the proposed amendment that was placed
33 before the electors in the referendum was not as to amend the meaning of Section 51(xxvi) but
34 merely to include Aboriginals as a “race”.
35
36 Do keep in mind the issue of “general community”.
37 Now consider the following: “KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
38 High Court of Australia” Re the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
39 The mere fact that the purported “Racial Discrimination Act 1975” is directed against the
40 “general community” means it never was a valid legislation in the first place.
41
42 The Commonwealth is reportedly spending about $34 Billon to $39 Billon a year regarding
43 Aboriginals, just that in my view there is no constitutional powers for this. Let me explain:
44
45 Moreover, Ss51(xxvi) was inserted in the constitution to “DISCRIMINATE” against a race, and
46 as such, the 1967 con-job ss51(xxvi) could only mean that now the Commonwealth could
47 “DISCRIMINATE” against Aboriginals and not otherwise. However, any such legislation must
48 be against ALL people of that race and not just some of them. Meaning that any legislation
49 dealing with some group of Aboriginals but not others is unconstitutional! After all, the 1967
50 Ss51(xxvi) referendum was not at all as to amend the meaning of this section regarding all other
51 races and one cannot have a Section having opposite meanings depending which race is referred
52 to.
Page 23
1
2 Ok, now the U.N. having been behind the 1967 con-job referendum appears to me, thanks also to
3 a great part due to Australian lawyer Josephine Cashman publications (see her substack) to
4 pursue more harm to Aboriginals, by effectively using them to get Australian land in their hands.
5
6 In my view the real solution would have been to hold a referendum to abolish both s25 and
7 Ss51(xxvi).
8 That however I understand will not please Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid the architects of
9 Voice, as I understand Mr Anthony Albanese claimed them to be.
10 In regard of the various videos I watched regarding Thomas Mayo I understand he desires to
11 create a “BLACK STATE” and well the legal principle embedded in the Constitution entitles
12 him the right to express his political views, it is however what I consider the deceptive conduct
13 by Anthony Albanese (prime) Minister and collaborators to have claimed they accepted the
14 ‘Uluru statement of the heart’ as such, and now seems to be back peddling and changing to
15 only accept certain parts. Reality is, that considered what I have set out above the
16 Commonwealth can create States but must do so not to offend legal principles embedded in the
17 constitution and so also the right of citizens to freely move about, and not have for example
18 access to a beach denied because of claimed land rights. Does anyone really believe that the
19 water at the beach or even the sand was there tens of thousands of years ago. If so put the person
20 in a mental asylum!
21 The Commonwealth cannot create any new State that denies citizens to enter as per legal
22 principles embedded in the constitution and so Voice is to try to get around this where then the
23 Parliament can claim it is no more doing what the Voice provides for and the hell with whatever
24 the legal principles were before the inclusion of Voice.
25
26 Anthony Albanese (prime) Minister made claims that the Voice that is to be included into the
27 Constitution is a mere one A4 and the Federal Government is committed to implement it.
28 However, Journalist and presented Peta Credlin SkyNews provided a link to the claimed ‘Uluru
29 statement of the heart’
30
31
32
33 https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin
34
35
36 https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sky-news-host-peta-credlin-exposes-labors-lie-on-
37 the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-under-freedom-of-information-act/news-
38 story/f1539032a44c6658c2feb352b2ddea45
39 Sky News host Peta Credlin exposes Labor's 'lie' on the Uluru Statement from the Heart
40 under Freedom of Information Act
41 Sky News host Peta Credlin has debunked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's claim the Uluru
42 Statement from the Heart can be read in "about two minutes" after obtaining a lengthy
43 document under Freedom of Information.
Page 24
1 QUOTE
2
3 Mr Albanese has repeatedly spruiked the Uluru Statement as a "two minute read" one-page
4 document "that invites all Australians to walk together to a better future". Picture: Daily Mail
5 END QUOTE
6 And
7 QUOTE
8 Mr Albanese has repeatedly spruiked the Uluru Statement as a "two minute read"
9 one-page document "that invites all Australians to walk together to a better future".
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 QUOTE
13 The document also sets out in detail that the Voice will be "accommodated on an
14 appropriate site within the parliamentary circle in Canberra" and that it "must also
15 be supported by a sufficient and guaranteed budget, with access to its own
16 independent secretariat, experts and lawyers," Credlin said.
17 She said the information aligned with her previous reports about talk in Canberra
18 that claimed public servants were already reviewing the plans of Parliament House to
19 work out where they will establish the Voice, as well as where they will build a new
20 chamber for meetings and offices for paid staffers.
21 END QUOTE
22 And
23 QUOTE
24 Credlin recommended those in doubt about "the radical nature of the changes"
25 proposed by Voice campaigners, comb through the 86 pages of lead-up deliberations
26 preceding the full 26 pages of the Statement from the Heart
27 END QUOTE
28
29 Indeed when checking https://www.skynews.com.au/petacredlin then the document can be downloaded
30 from https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf.
31
32 https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/anthony-albanese-under-fire-
33 for-threeword-voice-to-parliament-slogan-after-denying-treaty-plans-in-clash-with-ben-
34 fordham/news-story/928a7245257b120e0204a980ca669db8
35 Anthony Albanese under fire for three-word Voice to Parliament slogan after denying
36 treaty plans in clash with Ben Fordham
Page 25
1 Three words emblazoned on Anthony Albanese’s shirt at a Midnight Oil concert have come back
2 to haunt him after his fiery interview with Ben Fordham last week.
3 QUOTE
4
5 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was caught wearing a "Voice, Truth, Treaty" t-shirt in
6 October last year. Picture: Daily Mail.
7 END QUOTE
8 And
9 QUOTE
10 But when asked about statements made by members of his referendum working group -
11 like Thomas Mayo, who has suggested the Voice was the “first step” in paying reparations
12 - Mr Albanese dodged any link with the referendum and treaty.
13 “This is not about a treaty. This isn't about that. Ben, what we need to do - this is the
14 issue here. We have had a debate about things that aren't happening rather than about
15 things that are,” Mr Albanese told Fordham last week.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/anthony-albanese-under-fire-
19 for-threeword-voice-to-parliament-slogan-after-denying-treaty-plans-in-clash-with-ben-
20 fordham/news-story/928a7245257b120e0204a980ca669db8
21 Voice to Parliament slogan after denying treaty plans in clash with Ben Fordham
22 Three words emblazoned on Anthony Albanese’s shirt at a Midnight Oil concert have come back
23 to haunt him after his fiery interview with Ben Fordham last week.
24 QUOTE
25 He hit back at Mr Albanese for denying the existence of plan to enact a treaty despite
26 consistent government messaging to the contrary.
27 “The very first thing he said the night he won the election was to acknowledge country and
28 to reiterate the Labor government’s commitment to the Uluru statement in full… in
29 other words Voice, treaty, truth,” Mr Abbott said on Monday.
30 “I think he must have had a momentary attack of amnesia when he sat in this chair last
31 week and said the treaty’s got nothing to do with it because plainly treaty has everything to
32 do with it.
33 “The whole point of having a Voice, if the activists are to be believed, is to start the treaty-
34 making process. And government ministers have said as much.”
35 END QUOTE
36 And
37 QUOTE
38 But when asked about statements made by members of his referendum working group -
39 like Thomas Mayo, who has suggested the Voice was the “first step” in paying reparations
40 - Mr Albanese dodged any link with the referendum and treaty.
41 “This is not about a treaty. This isn't about that. Ben, what we need to do - this is the
42 issue here. We have had a debate about things that aren't happening rather than about
43 things that are,” Mr Albanese told Fordham last week.
44 “No, Ben. I can't say it any clearer. Compensation has nothing to do with what people
45 will vote on in the last quarter of this year.”
46 END QUOTE
47

Page 26
1 In my view a (prime) Minister should not go about pursuing his communist Voice issue as his
2 function, duties and obligations as an office holder being a Minister of the Crown is to be non-
3 political to ensure to represent all Australians and not those who align to his political views. I am
4 well aware other and former Minister likewise were so to say play their political football and
5 they are entitled to do so as a Member of Parliament but once accepting to be a “constitutional
6 advisor” then political motives no longer can be part of performing their portfolio functions.
7
8 https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf
9 QUOTE
10
11
12 END QUOTE
13
14 “The Law was violated by the coming of the British to Australia. This truth needs to be told. ”
15
16 As I have explained above the Dutch named the “Southern Land” in 1606 New Holland and after
17 that the Dutch commenced to reside in New Holland due to various circumstances and in 1658
18 formally claimed New Holland for the Dutch Government. As such, there was no such thing as
19 the “British” violating the “Law” that this ‘Uluru statement from the heart’ is claiming as to be
20 Aboriginal law because Dutch law already existed since before 1658!
21
22 When a 26 page statement already commenced with deception to the real facts then this ought to
23 be of concern.
24
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
28 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
29 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
30 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
Page 27
1 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
2 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
3 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
4 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
5 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
6 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
7 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
8 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Again:
12
13 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
14 Australasian Convention)
15 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
16 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
17 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
18 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
19 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
20 embrace and unite.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lifi5x8I8sk
24 SECRET COMMUNIST PLOT BEHIND TO VOICE TO PARLIAMENT EXPOSED
25
26
27
28
Page 28
1
2 There can be absolutely no doubt that any Member of Parliament is entitled to hold certain
3 political views, including that of a communist party however once a Member of parliament
4 accepts to be commissioned to be a Minister of the Crown, than the person must disregard his
5 political association and act for all citizens regardless of their political association!
6
7 As such, any Minister who is spruiking certain political issues violates being political impartial.
8
9 The Governor-General is foremost to be and be seen to be apolitical and as such regardless of his
10 political views must represent the Monarch in a political impartial manner.
11
12 While by convention there is a reference to “Labor Government”/ “Albanese Government” or
13 “Coalition Government”/”Morrison Government” reality is that it is ma Governor-General’s
14 government! It must not be seen as some political party government what so ever! Regretfully
15 the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) blatantly disregard to ensure electors are not during
16 an election misled and many if not most electors perceive they are actually voting for a
17 Government which the constitution does not provide for as they no more but vote who shall
18 represent them and the Governor-General may or may not then choose from them who shall be a
19 “constitutional adviser” and be granted commission for a particular portfolio. Such person
20 within the provisions of Section 64 of the constitution doesn’t need to be a Member of
21 Parliament albeit limited to 3 months unless elected subsequently.
22
24 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
25 The resolutions conclude:
26 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time
27 to time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose
28 term of office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of
29 representatives expressed by the support of the majority.
30 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
31 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
32 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
33 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
Page 29
1 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
2 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
3 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
4 view.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
9 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
10 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
11 case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
12 to it.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Again:
16 “a body of constitutional advisers”
17
18 This means that not the advisors political views but rather their “constitutional advice” to the
19 Governor-General is what matters.
20
21 In my view the Governor-General is prohibited to commission a person to be a Minister who
22 were to pursue his own political ambitions in violation of the legal principles embedded in the
23 constitution.
24
25 In my view (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese, The Attorney-Governor Mark Deyfus, Linda
26 Burney Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and others by this misled the Parliament to vote for the
27 Voice purportedly being a one page A3 document concealing the other 25 pages. By this
28 Members of Parliament were misled to vote for a Bill by deception!
29 While ordinary for any Member of Parliament misconduct may ordinary be an internal matter for
30 the respective House to deal with, where it relates to a proposed referendum than this is a more
31 serious matter, in particular where this were to undermine the powers of the Monarch and by this
32 the representative Governor-General.
33
34 There never to my understanding existed any “First Nation” so often claimed because numerous
35 tribes simply had their own customs and traditions and not uncommon had deadly battles
36 between them. Many Aboriginal tribes simply arrived from different countries at different time
37 periods, and as such had different languages, customs and traditions.
38 The document admits that there “a diverse cultures, living in an astounding array of
39 environments” calling it a “First Nations” when some if not most Aboriginals came from other
40 parts of the world and settled at different periods of times as the Phoenicians and Egyptians did
41 in the northern part of what was then the ‘Southern Land’ hardly constitute one Aboriginal “First
42 Nations”. Even the so called Aboriginal Flag I understand was created in about 1972 for
43 Aboriginal and environmental purposes.
44
45 Much is claimed how the Aboriginals were proper land managers as they used to burn growth,
46 etc, from time to time. Just to consider that in those days there was no such thing as a fire
47 brigade to extinguish any wild fire, and even now once a fire commence it can burn hundreds of
48 kilometres of bush. Just imagine how many Aboriginals were in those days living in the bush and
49 burned to death due to the fires? This hardly shows there was any organised “First Nations”
50 rather that each tribe just looked after what it may have deemed best for its own. They didn’t
51 have a flag amongst them, and the make belief flag hardly can be accepted to constitute a flag
52 that is thousands of years old. If anything the Dutch flag was part of New Holland!
Page 30
1
3 QUOTE
4 III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
5 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House
6 of Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the
7 expiration or remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
8 Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point:
9 A number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign
10 power, especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be
11 necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been naturalised
12 as provided in clause 30"?
13 Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
14 Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against
15 us.
16 Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
17 Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that
18 treaties may be in force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in
19 operation on the very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in
20 Japan practically the same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his own
21 country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in another country, who
22 becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high powers, he
23 should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
24 Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them
25 may come back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
26 Clause as read agreed to.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding
32 one-"External affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be
33 true; but there are a very large number of people who look forward with interest to the
34 Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part of the British Empire, the regulation
35 of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to whether the one thing is
36 included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in this
37 question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the
38 subsection may do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be
39 pressed.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
43 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
44 The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
45 would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
46 Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
47 citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
48 page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 It must be clear that the that the “treaty” powers was with foreign nations including Pacific
52 Islands but not within the Commonwealth itself and neither against Australians as it was made

Page 31
1 clear “could only act for and on behalf of its citizens” as such not rob Australians of their
2 rights to move freely to a beach as now appears to be by the alleged land rights!
3 As also has become clear that those organisations purportedly having obtained land rights now
4 place Aboriginals worse off than if those Aboriginals lived elsewhere.
5
6 https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-parliament-debunking-
7 10-myths-and-misconceptions
8 QUOTE
9 This status is not based on race. It is based on the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
10 Islander peoples are Indigenous to this continent. They were here long before British
11 colonisation and are the only group of Australians with a 60,000-year connection to this
12 continent.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
15 QUOTE
16 An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice would be a body enshrined in the Constitution
17 that would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations to
18 the Parliament and government about laws and policy that affect Indigenous
19 Australians. Some commentators have argued that an advisory body open only to Indigenous
20 Australians will divide the country on the basis of race or that it breaches important principles
21 of equality, because it will give one group of people more rights than other groups. Are they
22 correct? The answer is no.
23  The Voice does not confer 'special' rights on anyone. A group of leading
24 constitutional lawyers, including a former High Court Judge, has considered this
25 question. They found that the Voice does not confer rights, let alone 'special' rights on
26 anyone. Instead, the Voice would give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
27 peoples an opportunity to make representations to the Parliament and the
28 government. All Australians have the same opportunity. The Voice would not
29 change this; it 'would not change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone
30 who is not Indigenous'.
31
32  The Voice recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First
33 Australians. The Voice would constitutionally recognise the unique status and
34 position that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold in Australia as the
35 original occupiers of the Australian continent. This status is not based on race. It is
36 based on the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are Indigenous to
37 this continent. They were here long before British colonisation and are the only group
38 of Australians with a 60,000-year connection to this continent.
39
40  The Parliament can make laws that only affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait
41 Islander peoples. The Australian Parliament has passed special laws that only affect
42 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is the only group of people in
43 Australia about which special laws are made. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
44 people are the only group that has special laws made about them, it is reasonable that
45 they should be able to speak to the Parliament and government about those laws.
46
47  There is no such thing as 'race'. To even speak of the notion of race is misguided.
48 There is no scientific or biological foundation for the idea of race. Scientists that have
49 mapped the human genome have found there is no basis in the genetic code for race.
50 Race is a social construct. This emphasises again that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
51 Islander Voice reflects the inherent rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
52 hold as the original inhabitants of the Australian continent. It is not based on race.
Page 32
1 END QUOTE
2
3 Again:
4
5 The Voice would not change this; it 'would not change or take away any right, power or
6 privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous'
7
8 It would because when you provide special provisions for one group of people then you deny
9 equality to the other group of people. If you provide more funding to one group of people then
10 you deny the other group equality of funding, etc.
11 QUOTE
12 The Australian Parliament has passed special laws that only affect Aboriginal and
13 Torres Strait Islander people. This is the only group of people in Australia about which
14 special laws are made. If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the only group
15 that has special laws made about them, it is reasonable that they should be able to speak to
16 the Parliament and government about those laws.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 The Voice is not just about special laws as to Aboriginals, to which there is no constitutional
20 powers other than to DISCRIMINATE but about where general laws are legislated somehow
21 Aboriginals get a better deal, etc.
22
23 For example, they seek to have a different level of taxation, retirement age this while many
24 people who settled in the Commonwealth of Australia may also have a shorter lifespan due to
25 their genes, etc, so why should they then not also have the same shorter retirement age as
26 Aboriginals? And many non-Aboriginals who suffer ill health may not at all make the retirement
27 age at all even if ordinary others would and so why not change the retirement age of them also?
28
29 QUOTE
30 The Australian Parliament has passed special laws that only affect Aboriginal and
31 Torres Strait Islander people.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Constitutionally unless they discriminate against Aboriginals those laws are not valid!
35 LEARN THE CONSTITUTION!
36
37 QUOTE
38 There is no such thing as 'race'. To even speak of the notion of race is misguided. There
39 is no scientific or biological foundation for the idea of race. Scientists that have mapped
40 the human genome have found there is no basis in the genetic code for race. Race is a
41 social construct. This emphasises again that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
42 Voice reflects the inherent rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold as the
43 original inhabitants of the Australian continent. It is not based on race.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 What a croc. As I explained and have written about long ago the word “race” in the constitution
47 means a ‘specific group of people’ any competent judge and constitutional lawyer would have
48 understood this! I also wrote then about it that there was no genetic code regarding race and so
49 nothing different there. The claim “Race is a social construct” in my view is a false and
50 misleading claim because the Framers of the Constitution held that people of a particular
51 nationality represented a “race”, such as Afghans, etc.
52
Page 33
1 You cannot have S51(xxvi) referring to Aboriginals as a “race” and have a s129 where
2 Aboriginals are not a “race” in the same constitution! I understand that experts in genetics made
3 clear that pending about 20 genes of the father and the mother what the race will be of the child.
4 Hence, it has been widely known that couples have twins and one might be white skinned and
5 the other black skinned, where parents are of different skin colours.
6
7 As for
8 Voice reflects the inherent rights Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold as the
9 original inhabitants of the Australian continent.
10
11 The Torres Strait islanders were annexed in 1879 into Queensland and as such have no “original
12 inhabitants history of an alleged 65,000 years!
13
15
16 QUOTE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
17 On Tuesday, 11 April 2023, 02:08:39 pm AEST, Mark B <underthewire4me@gmail.com> wrote:
18 QUOTE
19 I agree with what you say below
20
21 There is evidence the Phoenicians, Egyptians and ancient Hebrew (who were the 2nd
22 biggest sea farmers after the Phoenicians) reach the east coast of Australia around 5,000
23 years and less, ago
24
25 Yeah, a massive guilt complex has been sown in the population. it needs to be countered
26 cheers
27 M
28
29 On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:34 PM Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
30 wrote:
31 Mark,
32 those who follow my writings such as in the last few days may just realise this nonsense
33 needs to be stopped.
34 Remember all they wanted was an apology? They got it but it was merely to sow a guilt
35 feeling and the sheeple felt for it.
36
37 As I indicated in past writings I view that the judges of HCA were traitors to hand down a
38 decision they dreamed up without properly invoking jurisdiction in various cases.
39 Dutch law was actually the first law in New Holland (later renamed Australia) and that I view
40 also was ignored by the purported MABO decision.
41
42 QUOTE:-
43 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give
44 effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary,
45 including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the
46 Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That
47 necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people long dead, bind the
48 people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those decisions are
49 out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
50
51 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
52 intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
Page 34
1
2 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its
3 words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any
4 meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
5 facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
6 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
7 END QUOTE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
8
9 Egyptians and Phoenicians I understand were part of Australia (as it now is named) long before
10 the Torres Strait Islanders were annexed in 1879 by Queensland and as such why is it that Torres
11 Strait Islanders are to be deemed “First Nations” but not the Phoenicians and the Egyptians and
12 other tribes that lived in what is now called Australia?
13 QUOTE
14 Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
15 129. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
16 In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of
17 Australia:
18
19 1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
20
21 2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the
22 Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters
23 relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
24
25 3, The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with
26 respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including
27 its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
28 END QUOTE
29
Page 35
1
3 QUOTE
4
5 END QUOTE
6
7 The document makes known that in 1967 legislative powers was removed from the States and
8 that is precisely what I have made known that all and any State legislation since the
9 Commonwealth legislated in regard of Aboriginals (Ss51(xxvi) then all and any State legislation
10 is no more!
11
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the
15 Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
16 END QUOTE
17
19 QUOTE

Page 36
1 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the
2 states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
3 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
4 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws
5 will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of
6 making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
11 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
12 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
13 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
14 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
15 END QUOTE
16
18
19
20 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was based upon Australians
21 natural born or naturalized were all “sovereign” citizens. They are the only persons who can
22 amend the constitution, which not even the Monarch and neither the Monarch representative can
23 amend. Neither can the High Court of Australia amend the constitution, regardless it purport to
24 do so in Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, etc.
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
29 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
30 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
31 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
32 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
33 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
34 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
35 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
36 side to attack each other's laws.
37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
41 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting
42 privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They
43 are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so.
44 From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are
45 proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several
46 colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures,
47 and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of
48 their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of
49 the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from
Page 37
1 them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence
2 concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
3 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution,
4 will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be
5 valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid
6 and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.
7 END QUOTE
8
10 QUOTE
11 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
12 parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark
13 on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
14 supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They
15 have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That
16 must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament
17 under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of
18 changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
19 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of
20 being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary
21 sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring
22 into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and
23 executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason:
29 That the local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the
30 peace, order, and good government of the community, and that is without restriction,
31 except such small restrictions as are imposed by the Constitutions themselves, and, of
32 course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their own territory.
33 The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
34 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental
35 to a power given.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 It should be understood that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a constitutional monarchy or
39 a republic as politicians often try to make out but is and remains to be under the British Crown.
40 Also, Section 128 referendum powers cannot be used to change the Commonwealth of Australia
41 into a republic!
42
44
45 And
46
Page 38
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
5 subjects of the British Crown.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
10 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
11 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
12 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
13 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
14 Parliament."
15 END QUOTE
16
17 The notion that sovereignty was never ceded is a non-argument because the Commonwealth of
18 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) clearly provides that all Australians are sovereigns, while
19 remaining to be “Subjects of the British Crown” and this is precisely what appears (prime)
20 Minister Anthony Albanese, Attorney-General Mark Deyfus, Linda Burney Minister for
21 Aboriginal Affairs and others are pursuing to alter. And, when it comes to the Dutch having
22 commenced to live in New Holland then Dutch law and Aboriginal laws became intertwined in
23 some ways co-existing albeit Dutch law being superior in that they were statute laws in addition
24 to Dutch ‘common laws’ that came along with the sailors when the fathered children with local
25 tribes and continued with their descendants, etc.
26
28
29 And
30
Page 39
1
2 Let it be very clear that the wording “There was strong support in the group for the pursuit
3 of a treaty that would give Torres Strait Islander people self-determination, autonomy and
4 self government.”
5 What this indicates is that first of all it was a “group” and exclusively deals with “Torres Strait
6 Islander people” seeking “self-determination, autonomy and self government.”. This hardly
7 includes the Governor-General to represent the Monarch!
8
10
11
12 Do note:
13 QUOTE
14 Another person suggested that the separation of powers needs to be considered and
15 because interpretation is so important, there should be a requirement for an
16 Aboriginal person or people to be sitting next to the High Court judges when
17 decisions are made on Aboriginal issues.
18 QUOTE
19
20 While I understand recently a female judge of Aboriginal descent was appointed to the High
21 Court of Australia this however appears to me not to be relevant to Voice, as they neither view
22 that Members of Parliament of Aboriginal descent are representing them. So much for Linda
23 Burney Minister for Aboriginal Affair to be implied rejected to represent Aboriginals in that
24 regard.
25
26 What the Voice appears to be looking at is not just one “person” but even “people” to sit with
27 the High Court of Australia judges to vote on laws that affect Aboriginals.
28
30 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
31 It has been thought well that there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in
32 respect to the citizens of Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be
33 put into a separate clause giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that
34 the Federal Parliament should legislate upon this matter.
35 END QUOTE
36
38 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
39 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
40 Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must
41 be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the
42 Commonwealth.
43 END QUOTE
Page 40
1 .
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
5 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE
10 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be
11 necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once.
12 We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at
13 once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to
14 fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury
15 will be avoided.
16 END QUOTE
17 .
19 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
20 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years
21 after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the
22 conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
23 END QUOTE
24
26 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
27 On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of
28 excise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise
29 would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and
30 the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I
31 am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for some
32 years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
33 END QUOTE
34
36 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
37 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties
38 shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed
39 on any goods exported from one state to another;
40 END QUOTE
41
43 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
44 Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and
45 that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
46 END QUOTE
47
49 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
50 That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that
51 the following words be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of
52 states, or between goods passing from one state to another."
53 END QUOTE
54
Page 41
1 That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted,
2 with a view to inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states
3 or parts of states, or between persons or things passing from one state to another."
4
5 The amendment was agreed to.
6
7 The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
8
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Then, on 16-3-1898 is appears to have been amended, without further discussion but approved
12 off by voting, from;
13
14 Taxation; but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between persons
15 or things passing from one state to another.
16 To
17 Taxation; but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states
18
19 It was claimed that in substance there was no change. Hence, both versions ought to be taken as
20 having the same meaning.
21 This is a critical issue as the wording;
22
23 “or between persons or things from one state or another”
24
25 than clearly entails that there can be no difference in taxation between persons, and as such
26 neither one person having a tax free income, partly or wholly while another having the same
27 income is required to pay more tax.
28
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95
32 in its present form. What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the
33 same way as you provide that the Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform
34 throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be provided with reference to trade and
35 commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the Commonwealth shall not give
36 preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all taxation,
37 whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and
38 inasmuch as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same
39 way I argue that we should protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing
40 anything which will limit its effect. That is the real logical position.
41 END QUOTE
42 .
44 QUOTE
45 Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout
46 the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from
47 one state to another.
48 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this
49 sub-section, which puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the
50 Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty. Honorable members will recollect the difficulty
51 that arose over the construction of words equivalent to "uniform throughout the
52 Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has been
53 given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated
54 income tax case went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people
55 according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been
Page 42
1 thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field. I think that
2 although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in form"
3 throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise
4 about it, and prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case,
5 for instance, an income tax or a land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to
6 prevent a discrimination between citizens of the Commonwealth in the same
7 circumstances. I beg to move-
8 That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that
9 the following words be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of
10 states, or between goods passing from one state to another."
11 I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89,
12 prescribing free-trade among the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods
13 passing from one state to another would be clearly invalid, and could not possibly be
14 allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not to say anything about
15 goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently provided
16 for, and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax
17 which would make a difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of
18 another state, and to prevent anything which would place a tax upon a person going
19 from one state to another. I beg to move-
20 That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted,
21 with a view to inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between
22 states or parts of states, or between persons or things passing from one state to
23 another."
24 The amendment was agreed to.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 There ought to be absolutely no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution did not desire
28 “DISCRIMINATION” amongst Australians, and specifically excluded Aboriginals (including
29 Torres Strait Islanders) from Ss51(xxvi)”race” provision. However, I understand the U.N.
30 (United Nations) sought Aboriginals to be included in Ss51(xxvi) somehow promoting they
31 would gain more rights while constitutionally the opposite actually was applicable.
32
33 In today’s age, I view the better way would have been to simply have a referendum to delete s25
34 and Ss51(xxvi) and leave it by that.
35 Because Section 25 specifically permits the States to DISCRIMINATE against any “race” it
36 must be obviously clear that Ss51(xxvi) despite being amended in 1967 did not deny the States
37 to discriminate against a certain “race”. This also ought to underline that the 1967 Ss51(xxvi)
38 was never intended to give the Commonwealth exclusive powers as to any “race” but only
39 exclusive powers regarding “DISCRIMINATING” against a “race”. Had it been intended to
40 exclude States of legislating against any “race” to exercise any franchise (voting rights) then the
41 amendment of ss51(xxvi) did not make any sense not to have deleted Section 25 at the same time
42 as was with Section 127. Effectively the States other than by right of Section 25 no longer had
43 any other legislative powers regarding Aboriginals!
44
45 I understand that is not what the goal is of (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese as I understand
46 his roots are communism and the Voice is acknowledged by both Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid
47 to pursue communism. Voice is in fact a registered company! What therefore (prime) Minister
48 Anthony Albanese and others such as the Attorney-General and the Minister for Aboriginal
49 Affairs are spruiking is a gross deception upon the electorate and the real aim also includes “self-
50 government as a BLACK STATE which then will be for Aboriginals only and any non-
51 aboriginal be denied entry as already has eventuated with beaches under the land right claims.
Page 43
1
2 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
3
4 117 Rights of residents in States
5 A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
6 in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would
7 not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen
8 resident in such other State.
9
10 Those in a BLACK STATE (if this was to eventuate) may simply argue that it doesn’t
11 discriminate against non-Aboriginals as they do not have non-Aboriginals and so no
12 discrimination exist. While (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese is claiming that the Voice is a
13 “modest” change reality is that it is a considerable major change. It implies that Aboriginals
14 (including Torres Strait Islanders) are deemed to be ‘sovereign” outside the Commonwealth of
15 Australia, to have their own form of government, etc. There is a lot more to it but it should be
16 clear that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) section 128 referendum
17 powers cannot remove any “subject of the British Crown from its laws and jurisdiction, etc.
18
19 As I made known I legally challenged that the Commonwealth of Australia had no constitutional
20 powers to alter Australians their “Subject of the British Crown” nationality and this was not
21 challenged in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka in my successful appeals on 19 July 2006.
22
23 The s128 referendum powers cannot either alter the Commonwealth of Australia being a
24 “political union” as to become a ‘republic’!
25
26 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
27 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
28 The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the
29 responsibilities of self-government. They have amply proved in the past that they are
30 entitled to be trusted with all the powers appertaining to a free people. They have
31 believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution
32 second to none in the world.
33 END QUOTE
34
36 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
37 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses
38 of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if
39 the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next,
40 and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but
41 Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-
42 day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
43 Constitution.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 It is my position that the current Members of the Federal Executives are undermining what our
47 constitution stands for and have in my view misled the Parliament to vote for a Voice by
48 concealing relevant details, etc. I did notice that on 22 June 2023 various questions were put to
49 Linda Burney of which some were ruled to be legal issues. In my view any Member of
50 Parliament who seek clarification should be entitled to obtain such clarification and the Minister
51 should have submitted to the parliament any legal opinion about the issues of the proposed Voice
52 amendment of the constitution.
Page 44
1
2 It is my understanding that the Communist Party has since about 1930 pursued to use
3 Aboriginals to so to say infiltrate the Federal Government such as by the Voice. I acknowledge
4 that each Member of Parliament has “political liberty” but when acting as a Minister and a
5 “constitutional adviser” in charge of a portfolio then must be political impartial and must not
6 deceive any Member of Parliament by concealment of relevant details.
7
8 No Governor-General can rely upon any constitutional adviser and certainly not an Attorney-
9 General who may be involved in inappropriate conduct which may cause the Governor-General
10 to go along with something that the Governor-General may not have done were all details made
11 known.
12
13 Mr Anthony Albanese, the day after the 2022 purported federal election then I understand
14 appeared to have gone along for Australian Delegate to agree with changed to the WHO (World
15 Health Organisation) which effectively might mean that the WHO can override the provisions of
16 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
17 The Commonwealth allegedly would permit the WHO of obtain confidential details of
18 Australians, which it then with its partners share such as the W.E.F. (World Economic Forum)
19 and others.
20 While the Commonwealth has certain limited powers such as with quarantine and Ss51(xxiiiA)
21
22 (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions,
23 child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical,
24 sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services
25 (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription),
26 benefits to students and family allowances;
27
28 It in my view doesn’t include to allow external bodies who may and likely will misuse the
29 information to be provided to them highly confidential information of Australians.
30
31 The Commonwealth was by the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied any powers as to
32 conservation and yet while the Commonwealth may enter into treaties with other countries it
33 cannot compel anyone to comply with them. Nevertheless Ministers previously and currently are
34 blatantly disregarding this.
35
36 With what I consider to have been an elaborate covid scam and posted evidence in that regard at
37 my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati former and current Ministers are still pushing
38 this DEPOPULATION scheme which the USA government has been pursuing for decades:
39
40 1974/12/10 – Secretary of State Henry Kissenger’s national
41 Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) study
42 completed as the Kissinger Report, establishing global
43 depopulation as US geopolitical strategy.
44
45
46 1975/11/26 – President Gerald Ford endorsed the Kissinger Report’s depopulation plan
47 through National Security Decision Memorandum 314
48

Page 45
1
2 Let us first therefore look at the (USA) DoD DEPOPULATION plan:
3
4 Let us look as Deagel.com (http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx) population forecast
5 of 2017 and in particular, the current countries hit with COVID-19!
6
7 Name Country 2017 2025 Reduction %
8
9 United Kingdom 65,650,000 14,517,860 51,132,140 77.886%
10 Ireland 5,010,000 1,318,740 3,691,260 73.678%
11 Germany 80,590,000 28,134,920 52,455,080 65.089%
12 Spain 48,960,000 27,763,280 21,196,720 43.294%
13
14 France 67,100,000 39,114,580 27,985,420 41.707%
15 Switzerland 8,240,000 5,342,540 2,897,460 35.163%
16 Denmark 5,600,000 3,771,760 1,828,240 32.647%
17 Belgium 11,490,000 8,060,900 3,429,100 29.844%
18
19 Italy 62,140,000 43,760,260 18,379,740 29.578%
20 Austria 8,750,000 6,215,000 2,535,000 28.971%
21 Ukraine 44,030,000 31,628,980 12,401,020 28.165%
22 Norway 5,320,000 3,833,960 1,486,040 27.933%
23
24 Portugal 10,840,000 8,113,860 2,726,140 25.149%
25 Poland 38,480,000 33,230,780 5,249,220 13.641%
26
27 TOTALS 462,200,000 254,807,420 207,392,580 44.871%
28
29 United States of America 326,620,000 99,553,100 227,066,900 69.520%
30
31 Australia 23,230,000 15,196,600 8,033,400 34.582%
32
33 And to silence critics they went on to pay handsomely the media (albeit also unconstitutionally)
34 as I understood was what Event201 October 2019 was indicating, as to prevent others to become
35 aware of their murderous DEPOPULATION scam. The eSafety Commissioner, Ombudsman,
36 Human Rights Commissioners were simploy AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and if anything
37 not just refused to enforce constitutional rights but rather supported this TREASONOUS
38 conduct and let DICTATORSHIP & TERRORISM be the rule of the day.
39
40 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and
41 LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
43 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
44 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
45 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
46 secure to him.
47 END QUOTE
48 .
49 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 46
1 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
2 Constitution,
3 END QUOTE
4 .
5 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
7 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
8 Constitution,
9 END QUOTE
10
11 The Commonwealth itself has absolutely no legal powers to have any person injected with any
12 poison but can petition a Court of competent jurisdiction to hear ‘both sides’ and then hand down
13 a judgment if a person shall or shall not be injected. However, what eventuated is that when
14 Scott Morrison as (prime) Minister discovered he could not mandate injections he
15 unconstitutionally had the States/Territories doing so.
16
19 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd
20 clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
21 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Meaning, that since the Commonwealth legislated the Quarantine Act 1908 the States had to
25 retire from any legislation in regard of QUARANTINE issues. The Commonwealth s, this even
26 so the States/Territories have no legislative/executive and/or administrative powers for this.
27 superseded this legislation with the Biosecurity Act 2015 and yet Scott Morrison (prime)
28 Minister and now Anthony Albanese (prime) Minister have both gone along to let the
29 States/Territories unconstitutionally mandate Australians. As result there has been death and
30 destruction all around and it continues to this day. So much having a constitution where there is
31 an ongoing blatant disregard for the true meaning and application of the legal principles
32 embedded in it!
33
34 We also had/have that Mr Scott Morrison then (prime) Minister and subsequently Anthony
35 Albanese (prime) Minister has gone about to assist the Ukraine NAZI Government in its
36 genocide that commenced in 2014 against ethnic Russian Ukrainians then residing in Ukraine.
37 Since then has supplied monies, weapons, vehicles, etc, without constitutional authority!
38
39 The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that one doesn’t have to wait until the guns
40 are booming to respond to an imminent attack buy an enemy force.
41
43 QUOTE
44 Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the
45 application of the Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.
46 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
47 That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.
48 Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are
49 not likely ever to be invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.
50 Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this
51 clause.
52 Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is
53 an attack.
Page 47
1 Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds

2 invasion follows.
3 Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion"
4 covers the ground, well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion"
5 cover "attack"? Originally, the amendment I intended to move used both the words
6 "attack" and "invasion."
7 Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.
8 Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?
9 [start page 692]
10 Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country
11 was approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.
12 Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to
13 invade, but to attack.
14 Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the
15 purpose of attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian
16 fleet at anchor?
17 Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is
18 only bound to protect every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its
19 duty, and South Australia was invaded, South Australia would have a claim against the
20 Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should have an equal claim against the
21 Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the leader of the
22 Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the
23 Drafting Committee, but I have some doubt on the point.
24 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are
25 booming there will be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.
26 Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming?
27 I thought the object was to prevent the guns booming at all.
28 Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my
29 honorable friend (Mr. Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and
30 "military." Now, an attack would be naval, while an invasion would be military.
31 The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?
32 Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am
33 content.
34 The amendment was withdrawn.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 However, where no such imminent attack is applicable or likely then the Minister of Defence
38 needs to request the Governor-General to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR
39 naming the country or countries.
40
43 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of
44 which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not
45 present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen
46 would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no
52 desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
53 END QUOTE
Page 48
1
2 While the Commonwealth of Australia may have treaties such as ANZUS, etc, they do not
3 override the constitution! Hence, only the Governor-General can declare war by publishing in
4 the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming one or more countries.
5
6 It is my understanding that no such DECLARATION OF WAR has been published naming the
7 Russian Federation and as such I view that the previous Minister of Defence and the current
8 Minister of Defence have acted to undermine your constitutional position and also your
9 prerogative powers.
10 I did in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka (19 July 2006) actually then refer to the same violation involving
11 Mr John Howard and this was not challenged by the Commonwealth or any of the 9 Attorney-
12 Generals.
13
14 After the purported 2022 federal election I understand that (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese
15 then went to Ukraine and promised to provide monies, vehicles, munition, etc. This even so not
16 only was there no DECLARATION OF WAR published naming the Russian Federation but
17 also no return of the writs had eventuated and as such (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese could
18 not have acted in regard of any Appropriation Bills having passed through both House of
19 Parliament. Neither as I understand it was (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese commissioned as
20 Minister for Defence and/or Minister for Foreign Affairs, and as such so to say was a busy body
21 interfering in matters in an unconstitutional/unlawful manner.
22 With former (prime) Minister Scott Morrison there was an issue that he allegedly was
23 commissioned in numerous portfolios despite that those additional alleged portfolios never were
24 legally eventuating, this as whenever a Governor-General commission a person to be a Minister
25 then the act is not completed until the Governor-General has published in the Gazette such
26 appointment.
27
28 I actually litigated this in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka and again this was not challenged by any
29 opponents, where the writs were issued on 8 October 2001 but the proclamation was not
30 published until 9 October 2001. While the prosecutor on 4 August 2005 filed a Special Gazette
31 dated 8 October 2001 as exhibit, I opposed this to be filed but was overruled by the Court, then
32 when I pointed out the FOI Act evidence from the Official Printer that the Special Gazette was
33 not published until 9 October 2001 the Prosecutor then withdrew the exhibit Special Gazette
34 albeit was now prevented for me to use this in the litigation to expose the truth. In fact, the
35 Prosecutor had not realised I already had filed with the Court a copy of the Special Gazette with
36 the FOI Act documentation proving it was published on 9 October 2001 and as such the writs
37 had no legal validity as they were issued when there were no vacant seats in the House of
38 Representatives on 8 October 2001. I understand that the Governor-General on 5 October 2001
39 had signed the Proclamation but due to the Special Gazette Officer not being at work until in the
40 afternoon of 8 October 2001, which was already then past the times stipulated for 11.59AM and
41 12 noon for dissolution of the House of Representatives and proroguing the Parliament, and as
42 such no valid writs were issued, where the Governor-General did not issue an amended
43 Proclamation, but which then would have resulted in the election to be held a week later. It was
44 accepted that the signing of the proclamation itself has no legal force unless the proclamation has
45 been published in the Gazette. Australians have a right to know when the Governor-General
46 exercises prerogative powers and this also governs any purported commission to any portfolio,
47 and hence requires to be published in the Gazette to have legal force! This did not eventuate with
48 the numerous purported additional appointments involving then (prime) Minister Scott Morrison
49 and neither could be legally proper where only one Minister can be exercising the commission of
50 a portfolio, and as such of Mr Scott Morrison was to have been duly commissioned for additional

Page 49
1 portfolios then the persons who had been previously commissioned all by this would have no
2 longer been able to exercise any Ministerial position.
3 As I then litigated and without any challenge by the Commonwealth or any Attorney-General
4 there never was a valid election for the House of Representatives in 2001 and as such all those
5 who were commissioned as Ministers lost this position 3 months (s64 of the constitution) after
6 the commission was provided and as no election occurred until 2004 then effectively any
7 purported Minister who had allegedly a seat in the House of Representatives never had and were
8 no longer Ministers.
9 It also did mean that Mr John Howard was no longer (after 3 months) a (prime) Minister and
10 neither had any parliamentarian seat after the 3 months and had no constitutional authority to
11 authorise any invasion into Iraq either!
12
13 Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and other
14 services:
15
16 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
19 It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
20 carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of
21 the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 (Writers note: Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo
25 opportunities for a Minister!)
26
27 And:
28 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
31 If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
32 all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do
33 national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants , the
34 influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
35 END QUOTE
36
37 (Writers note: Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
38 clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company)
39
40 It must be clear that Australians have a right to know whom is the relevant Minister and this is to
41 be made known by publication in the Gazette. After all one cannot have 2 or more Ministers as
42 only one is “responsible Minister” to be held accountable in the House of Representatives if this
43 is deemed required!
44
45 We also now seem to have that a Minister failed to have the Parliament passing an Appropriation
46 Bill for Housing.
47 The first issue is where is the constitutional powers for the Commonwealth to deal with
48 Housing?
49
50 Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. WISE: Exactly so. If the Appropriation Bill is not passed what is the Ministry to
53 do?
54 HON. MEMBERS? Resign.
Page 50
1 Mr. WISE: What is the next Ministry to do?

2 Sir GEORGE TURNER: They must go to the people.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 However, there is more to this.
6
7 The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear:
8
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part
12 of an annual service.
13 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
14 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
15 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we
16 distinguish from special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have
17 got rid of the phraseology to which we are accustomed, and instead of the words
18 Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
19 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to
20 place expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it
21 would not be a service.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 What was made clear that Appropriation Bills are either for annual service or for other matters.
25
26 I understand that the Appropriation Bills for the military annual requirements cannot be used to
27 then supply Ukraine with military items. While the Commonwealth can exercise “external
28 affairs” it cannot use this to provide funding, etc, to foreign countries as any surplus needs to be
29 returned to the States/Territories.
30
31 What we appear to have is that (prime) Minister Anthony Albanese has simply pursued some
32 convention that a (prime) minister can do whatever while constitutionally this is not permissible
33 because the Governor-General decides using prerogative powers who shall or shall not conduct
34 business in any portfolio.
35
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
39
40 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
41 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
42 Parliament will be a sentry.
43 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
44 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 I will refrain from quoting numerous other statements of the Framers of the Constitution of
48 embedded principles regarding Appropriation and Taxation Bills (Which I have widely
49 published them in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series of books on certain constitutional and
50 other legal issues), sufficient to state that regrettably we have too much political interferences
51 that cause dissent amongst Australians and, I view, you as Governor-General being the Chief
52 Executive Officer (as the Framers of the Constitution referred to) must take appropriate action to
53 ensure that the constitutional requirements by any Minister is appropriately complied with!
Page 51
1
2 This includes that instead of a budget to be handed down in may just before the new financial
3 year commences on 1 July the budget should be handed down well before that to allow about 3
4 months interval if the Appropriation/Taxation bills are not passed by both Houses and then if it
5 fails again to provide for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
6
8 QUOTE
9 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from
10 the time I am taking now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in
11 the Senate. I admit that his surmise is quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on
12 whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on whom, if practised, it would probably
13 not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and wills, and I say
14 that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some
15 provision in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being
16 intimidated in the way indicated. We have been frittering away the first principles of the
17 Federal Constitution long enough.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Clearly to leave the budget without allowing sufficient time for the required constitutional
21 processes is a form of TERRORISM.
22
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this
26 Constitution?
27 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church
28 could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
29 [start page 1773]
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
35 Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure!
36 Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole
37 of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of
38 the services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently
39 transferred from the States to the Commonwealth.
40 Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
41 Mr. BARTON: Yes.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 We experience however all kinds of mini-budgets in clear violation of the constitution.
45
46 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
47 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
48 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
49 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
50 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
51 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
52 authority of the United States”.
53
Page 52
1 The same applies as a legal principle to the Ministers of the Crown! So much has been going on
2 about the Voice but when one considers the issue of an Inter-State Commission not to exist,
3 this despite that the constitution makes it clear in s101 “There shall be” then clearly a lot of
4 pork barrelling by Ministers can be avoided by ensuring that such matters are dealt with by the
5 Inter-State Commission. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Parliament could
6 provide it with further powers besides “trade and commerce” if it legislated for this. Meaning
7 that instead of the Voice the Inter-State Commission could deal with this with certain issues
8 regarding Aboriginal “race” issues by its experts.
9
10 As for Aboriginals to be recognised in the Constitution, they were already since federation as not
11 to be included as a “race” in Ss51(xxvi) as they were deemed equal to any other Australian.
12 With the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum succeeding they were recognised to be equal as any
13 “inferior” “coloured” (“alien”) “race”!
14
15 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) cannot permit s128 referendum
16 powers to amend the preamble!
17
18 There are fools whom are claiming there is such a thing as Commonwealth of Australia
19 Constitution Act 1901 (AU), however the Commonwealth of Australia has no such
20 constitutional powers to create its own constitution as set out above already!
21
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Neither can s128 referendum powers be used to amend Chapter 9 of the Commonwealth of
28 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) because this Chapter 9 is only set out the structure of the
29 Commonwealth of Australia as well as to provide legislative powers and its limitations for the
30 Commonwealth of Australia.
31
32 Do note the wording “subject to this Constitution”:
33
34 2 Governor-General
35 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
36 Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
37 may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure,
38 but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
39 Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
40
41 When one considers constitutional provisions then one MUST consider the entire document
42 because of the wording: “subject to this Constitution”!
43
44 For the above I submit that the current Ministers of the Crown have betrayed the commission the
45 Governor-General provided to each of them and all Commissions should be withdrawn.
46
47 It doesn’t mean I view that this should mean that the Leader of the Opposition and his
48 collaborators should instead be commissioned as in my view with former (prime) Minister Scott
49 Morrison they too were betraying the commissions they Governor-General (so his predecessors)
50 had provided.
51

Page 53
1 What is badly needed is first of all to restore democracy and have persons in Ministerial
2 positions who show due respect with compliance to the will of the people, the Constitution!
3
4 Also, that any person wishing to be appointed as a judge of the High Court of Australia shall
5 have to be tested as to competence on constitutional issues and so the legal principles embedded
6 in the constitution.
7
8 In recent years with what I consider to have been a DEPOPULATION scheme involving
9 Ministers of the Crown, etc, it has proven that the constitution was blatantly disregarded both by
10 politicians, their collaborators and the judicature and this never again must be permitted to be
11 repeated.
12
13 In my view it is the duty and obligation for the Governor-General to ensure that any commission
14 that is provided to any person to be a Minister of the Crown is to a person most likely competent
15 in such position. While the executives at times may make recommendations for a particular
16 commission for a portfolio the Governor-General exercising prerogative powers ultimately must
17 make sure that a competent person is commissioned to can actually be a “constitutional advisor”.
18
19 In my view the current Governor-General having become the victim in the elaborate Voice
20 scam/deception cannot be trust Ministers to be a competent “constitutional adviser”.
21
22 In my view the Governor-General can never permit himself to become a party to the treachery I
23 view current Ministers of the Crown are engage in, and as the representative of the Monarch is
24 duty bound to take appropriate action which may include to withdraw any consent to the
25 proposed Section 128 Voice referendum to proceed.
26
27 Over the more than 120 years since federation politicians and even the High Court of Australia
28 seem to have taken upon themselves to violate legal principles embedded in the constitution by
29 way of conventions and this need to be stopped. Our youth of today can hardly respect
30 politicians and judges if their example is that you can disregard the rule of law when in power.
31 There are numerous other constitutional issues at hand however the above in my view ought to
32 be sufficient to withdraw the commissions of current Ministers who collaborated in the many
33 issues I complained about above!
34 As I made clear from onset, I had to learn the English language and study what the
35 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) true meaning and application of the
36 legal principles embedded in the constitution was about and proved in litigation (representing
37 myself) to be able to defeat my opponents based upon constitutional issues and expect that any
38 person commissioned to be a Minister of the Crown (a “constitutional adviser”) equally if not
39 better knows and conduct matters within those provisions, regretfully this doesn’t appear to
40 eventuating. As result huge numbers of Australians became victim and numerous died and will
41 die as result such as the covid scam, etc. This needs to be stopped. In my view the above stated
42 ought to provide sufficient details/information to withdraw the commission of current Ministers
43 of the Crown!
44
45 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
46
47 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
48 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
49 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

50 (Our name is our motto!)

20230805-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To His Excellency General The Honourable David Hurley AC DSC

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

20230805-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To His Excellency General The Honourable David Hurley AC DSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

1 HOW CAN YOU VOTE WISELY ON THE $364.6 MILLION CONSTITUTION

5-8-2023 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 photographs, forensic Anthropology, Archaeology and proven Scientific DNA that

1 “IN 1967 WE WERE COUNTED, IN 2017 WE SEEK TO BE HEARD.”

5-8-2023 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-8-2023 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

5-8-2023 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-8-2023 Page 30 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-8-2023 Page 35 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-8-2023 Page 44 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5-8-2023 Page 45 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds

5-8-2023 Page 48 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. WISE: What is the next Ministry to do?

5-8-2023 Page 52 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

49 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

You might also like