Page 1

1
2
3 Attorney-General Michelle Rowland 23-5-2025
4 Email [email protected],
5
6 Cc: Service Australian CUSTOMER.COMMENTS <[email protected]>
7 Centrelink Ref 301 602 799V Reply Paid 7800, CANBERRA BC ACT 2610
8
9 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
10 Re 20250523-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland
11 -regarding THE THEFT OF AGE PENSION & RIGHTS, ETC, part 12
12 Michelle,
13 I rely upon my previous correspondences to the office of the Attorney-General as well to
14 other government entities, including those published at https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.
15
16 Despite my various request for all information/details Service Australia/Centrelink relied upon to
17 make their unconstitutional/unlawful decision to suspend my Age Pension so far no
18 information/details have been provided and actually neither so regarding the fact it had
19 unconstitutionally/unlawfully accessed my now late wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel as well as my
20 private and confidential estate details, at least going by its allegations in its 10 August 2024
21 correspondence from itself.
22 Below I intent to set out how every politician is committing TREASON and unconstitutionally
23 charging monies against the Consolidated Revenue Funds and more over violate Section 44 of
24 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and by Section 45 are having
25 AUTOMATICALLY vacated their seats, as well as by Section 44 of the Constitution were not
26 eligible to be candidates in any political election. This applies to both the Commonwealth of
27 Australia as well as to the States/Territories (quasi states).
28

29
30
31 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: Gerrit you seem to really going all out against the politicians, are
32 you?
33
34 #*#Gerrit: Actually, for decades I have been writing about matters but while I would rather have
35 seen them addressing the issues, I considered all along ythey likely wouldn’t do so and by this
36 present me ample of evidence that they could have known and therefore cannot excuse
37 themselves that they didn’t know!
38
39 QUOTE my 22-5-2025 correspondence
23-5-2025 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 #*#Gerrit: I would immediately have a person pursuing to become a Minister proving

2 he/she understands and comprehend what the true meaning and application of the legal
3 principle are embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
4 Leeches who lack appropriate knowledge/understanding we can do well without.
5 END QUOTE my 22-5-2025 correspondence
6
7 Let us start with the Commonwealth of Australia being a “Political Union”!
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 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
20 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
21 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
22 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
23 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
24 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
25 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
26 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
27 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
28 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
29 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
30 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
35 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a
36 judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as
37 a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which
38 the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Let it be very clear it is a “political Union” and cannot be transformed into some “country” as the
42 High Court of Australia purported to claim in Sue v Hill! As the High Court of Australia is “as a
43 part of the Constitution” then it cannot by backdoor manner amend the constitution to turn a
44 “political Union” into a purported “country”! Hence, I view claiming it to be a “country” the
45 High court of Australia committed “TREASON”!
46
47 HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
48 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
49 We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to
50 say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough
51 to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the
52 Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments.
53 Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in
54 order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the
55 Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-
23-5-2025 Page 2 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one
2 legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
6 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
7 I object, in connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as
8 independent as any in the world, even England itself, so far as the freedom of our position
9 is concerned-to the word "province." There may be something more dignified in the use
10 of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces. I do not think we are
11 going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which those
12 who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal
13 form of government. We may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we
14 have endeavoured to put before the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort
15 of opiate, something assuring to their minds that in joining a federal union we give up
16 nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which I shall do my
17 utmost in Committee to strike out-
18 except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to
19 the power and authority of the national federal government.
20 I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has
21 given any clear interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle
22 upon which the basis of a constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial
23 rights and privileges of each colony shall be preserved to each state but when you
24 come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question of the power of
25 enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
26 provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
30 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
31 They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present
32 constitution second to none in the world. When the question of a second chamber
33 comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be satisfied to possess less freedom.
34 More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the explicit
35 claim to possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British
36 empire to the same extent that they are possessed and exercised by our fellow-
37 countrymen in Great Britain itself. Australia is entitled to absolute enfranchisement.
38 In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a full-grown democracy.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
42 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
43 The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the
44 responsibilities of self-government. They have amply proved in the past that they are
45 entitled to be trusted with all the powers appertaining to a free people. They have believed
46 that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second to
47 none in the world.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
51 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
52 The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a
53 unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central
23-5-2025 Page 3 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other
2 powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles
3 connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics
4 of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its
5 language. He says:
6 One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
7 either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
8 above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
9 legislatures, existing under the constitution.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
14 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
15 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
16 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
17 charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the
18 whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
19 END QUOTE
20 And
21 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
24 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
25 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
26 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
27 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
28 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
29 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
30 END QUOTE
31 And
32 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
35 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
36 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
37 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
38 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
39 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
40 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
41 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
42 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
43 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
44 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
45 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
46 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
47 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 It means that to purportedly register this “political Union” with the District of Columbia USA
51 and subject it by this under USA legislative powers and so SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the

23-5-2025 Page 4 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1 USA) then this also is in my view TREASON and those who maintain this likewise I view
2 commit TREASON!
3
4 Moreover, any monies borrowed within the registration with the District of Columbia is not to
5 be considered to be for the “political Union” being the Commonwealth of Australia and as such
6 are personal debts incurred by those who engaged in this rot within the purported registration of
7 the Commonwealth of Australia with the District of Columbia and as such are personally liable
8 for any monies so borrowed.
9
10 This means that any Minister who engaged in such practices by Sections 44 and 45 automatically
11 is deemed to have vacated his/her seat in the Parliament also.
12
13 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: What about “Citizenship”
14
15 #*#Gerrit: As I wrote about so often
16
17 Note: O.W.B. (Order of the Wattle Blossom) in recognition:
18 QUOTE
19 For upholding the civil rights, and political liberties of Australians, inherent in
20 the Commonwealth Constitution.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 I proved, and so unchallenged by the Commonwealth DPP and the 9 Attorney Generals that
24 “Australian citizenship” is not at all an “Nationality” but can only be obtained by a person being
25 a “State citizen” and having been granted as such with franchise (voting rights).
26
27 The Framers of the Constitution [Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)]
28 made it very clear that franchise to vote was derived from “State Citizenship”
29
30 Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
31 because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”
32
33 Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
34 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
35 constitutional rights."
36
37 HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united
38 States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand
39 upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private"
40 business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State
41 or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far
42 as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing
43 there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed"
44 by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State",
45 and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the
46 Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their
47 rights."
48
49 Not uncommon judges desire to inflict their personal preferences into their judgments regardless
50 if this violate their oath/affirmation when commissioned to be a judge. In the USA the issue of a
51 constitutional rights to abort/murder unborn babies or even those born is a clear example how
52 this went on for about 50 years, recently rectified.
23-5-2025 Page 5 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 6

1 The same in the Commonwealth of Australia with the MABO case, the Sue v Hill case, etc.
2 Even so I defeated the 9 Attorney Generals they hold the power and couldn’t care less as to
3 enforce the true rule of law as they rather pursue their own personal and political interest.
4 As made Justice Mary Gaudron clear the “intentions of the Framers of the constitution” is
5 non-negotiable. It must be applied as intended and not some judge or others pretending to
6 interpret the constitution in their own deceptive manner!
7
8 Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
9 KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution
10 power where none exists. ”
11
12 Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) HCA 24 (12 September 1996)
13 DAWSON J. : “ It may be observed that a legislature wishing to enact a statute ordering that
14 all blue-eyed babies be killed would hardly be perturbed by a principle of law which
15 purported to deny it that power. ”
16
17 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of
18 its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
19
20 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain
21 constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in
22 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
23 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
24
25
26 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17
27 June 1999)
28 QUOTE
29 Constitutional interpretation
30 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
31 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes
32 or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those
33 who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its
34 makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in
35 which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
36 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
37 opinion[53]:
38 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
39 authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have
40 called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of
41 people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an
42 historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking
43 or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion."
44 END QUOTE
45
46 AustLIIhttp://www.austlii.edu.au › au › journals › SydLawRw › 2007 › 8.html
47 'The Intelligence of a Future Day': The Vindication of Constitutional ...
48 ... Justice Mary Gaudron in early 2003. Using the same data gathered from ... The intentions of the
49 framers in respect of s 80 is discussed quite ...
50
51 VU Research Repositoryhttps://vuir.vu.edu.au › 33775 › 1 › WALTERS%20Robert%20-
52 %20thesis_nosignatures.pdf
53 The Legal Expression of Slovenia and Australia's National Identity:

23-5-2025 Page 6 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 7

1 ... Intentions of the Framers of the. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution in ... Justice Mary
2 Gaudron of the. High Court of Australia873 stated that ...
3
4 Конституціоналістhttps://constitutionalist.com.ua › wp-content › uploads › 2021 › 02 › Interpreting-
5 Constitutions-A-Comparative-Study_Jeffrey-Goldsworthy-ed..pdf
6 Interpreting Constitutions
7 ... intentions of the framers of the Constitution Act 1867 (other than the ... Justice Mary Gaudron was a
8 member of the Court from 1987–2003. Page 130 ...
9
10 One always has to consider that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
11 may have to be differently interpreted then other constitutions and as such not to rely upon
12 foreign constitutional principles which may clash with those legal principles embedded in our
13 constitution!
14 Let it be absolutely clear that the High Court of Australia is “part of the constitution” and not
15 above it and as such any judgment it claims to hand-down for so far that it violated the true
16 meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia
17 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is NULL AND VOID, such as MABO, Sue v Hill, Palmer v WA,
18 Sykes v Cleary, etc.
19
20 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
21 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
22 The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
23 made clear that “naturalization” powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
24 be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
25 “CITIZENSHIP” legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
26 Commonwealth of Australia.
27 Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to define/
28 declare “CITIZENSHIP” but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
29 I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
30 qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
31 position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
32 Constitution to do that.
33 Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
34 any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
35 as a British subject.
36 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
37 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
38 are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
39 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
40 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
41 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
42 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
43 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
44 and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
45 interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
46 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
47 colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
48 see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
23-5-2025 Page 7 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 8

1 subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
2 to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various
3 quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the
4 effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have
5 considered this matter very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most
6 difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is
7 in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition of
8 citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other
9 things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized
10 citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been found that that
11 excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That
12 shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed a proposed
13 clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me
14 surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned
15 members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any
16 definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable
17 to implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be
18 better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
19 yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
20 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
21 Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
22 the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
23 will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
24 citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to
25 the citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
26 people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
27 naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
28 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
29 come here.
30 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
31 the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
32 of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
33 of the Commonwealth?
34 Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
35 Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
36 Commonwealth?
37 And
38 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
39 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
40 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
41 learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
42 Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
43 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
44 acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
45 put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
46 on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
23-5-2025 Page 8 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 9

1 lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
2 become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
3 having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
4 "Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
5 of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
6 take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
7 And
8 Mr. OCONNOR.-I have said that I do not see that such a trust in the Federal Parliament
9 would be effective. I sympathize with the honorable member's view, but I think it will be
10 carried out by some kind of definition of citizenship, and I was pointing out the only
11 aspect in which it appears to me it might be desirable to have some such definition, and
12 that is, you are creating new rights to citizens of the Commonwealth as citizens of the
13 Commonwealth in regard to your courts. You establish courts for the Commonwealth, and
14 every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to the use of those courts.
15 Mr. HIGGINS.-Who is he?
16 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
17 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
18
19 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
20 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
21 Dual citizenship is not a dual nationality this as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;
22
23 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
24 Mr. SYMON.-
25 Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in
26 each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are
27 citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be
28 the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and
29 myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
30 Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
31 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
32 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
33
34 QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
35 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
36 QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
37 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
38 Attorney General 19-11-2002
39 Victoria
40 Fax 9651 0577 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
41 URGENT
42 Sir/Madam
43 Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have
44 as to be able to obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it
45 was stated;
46
47 “As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth,
48 not the States. You indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you
49 are an Australian citizen.”
50

23-5-2025 Page 9 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 10

1 This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil
2 Branch of the Department of Justice.
3
4 Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of
5 the High Court of Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isn’t in the
6 Constitution, then the Commonwealth had no legislative powers.
7
8 RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this
9 is clearly unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must
10 deal with State Citizenship!
11
12 Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of
13 Victoria to the Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution,
14 I view, there never was and still is no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to
15 determine State or any other citizenship!
16
17 At most, the Commonwealth, could determine “citizenship” as the local law for the Act and
18 Northern Territory through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as
19 they are not limited to constitutional provisions, however there never was any Constitutional
20 powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to any resident of a State, neither determine
21 citizenship of a citizen of a State!
22 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
23 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
24
25 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
28 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
29 power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned
30 member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is
31 asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,
32 of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
33 the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power
34 of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the
35 Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers'
36 question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become
37 a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that
38 taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
39 Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this
40 Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away
41 that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
42 END QUOTE
43 .
44 HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. ISAACS.-It is as follows:-
47 No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
48 of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
49 property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
50 equal protection of the law.
51 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is the Tasmanian amendment.
52 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, it has been adapted by than Tasmanian Assembly to suit our altered
53 circumstances but I want to point out that it only became necessary to pass that 14th
54 amendment in the United States in order to provide in the Constitution for the change that
23-5-2025 Page 10 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 11

1 was wrought by the Civil War. The rights of citizenship for the blacks and the abolition of
2 slavery had been won by hard fighting, and this Article 14 had to be rammed down the
3 throats of the Southern States by the military provision which I referred, to in Sydney.
4 This, together with the 15th article, which goes with it, had to be passed. The object of it
5 was as I have stated, and that was recognised by the United States courts in the case of
6 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 United States Reports, page 303. We can understand that a
7 Constitution should say who shall be citizens of the United States or citizens of the
8 Commonwealth. We can also understand that having constituted a citizenship of the
9 nation, no state should be permitted to abridge that citizenship, and take away any of
10 the privileges or immunities pertaining to citizens. What are these privileges and
11 immunities? That very question was dealt with in what are known as the Slaughter House
12 cases in 1872,16 Wallace, 36, and in certain other cases. This is what the court said-
13 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
14 Constitution, to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the
15 Government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share
16 its offices, to engage in administering its functions, free access to its sea ports through
17 which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, also to the sub-treasuries, land
18 offices, and courts of justice of the several states. Another privilege of a citizen of the
19 United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal Government for his life,
20 liberty, and property when on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign
21 country; the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances; the
22 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the right to use the navigable waters of the United
23 States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several states, and all rights secured
24 to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations; and the right of a citizen of the United
25 States of his own volition to become a citizen of any state of the Union by bona fide
26 residence therein.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded
32 the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has
33 enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one
34 citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.
35 That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
36 We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be
37 recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Again:
41
42 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
43 come here.
44 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
45 the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
46 of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
47 of the Commonwealth?
48 Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
49 Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
50 Commonwealth?
51
52 And
53
23-5-2025 Page 11 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 12

1 “As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the

2 Commonwealth, not the States. You indicated that you were naturalized in
3 1994. As result of that, you are an Australian citizen.”
4
5 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
6 Mr. SYMON.-
7 Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in
8 each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are
9 citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be
10 the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and
11 myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
12 Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
13 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT
14 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
15
16 Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) clearly provides that
17 “dual citizenship” is part of our system but being “citizenship” referring to the place of
18 abode which may include Franchise (voting rights pending State legislative provisions) but
19 is not a “nationality, as purported by the High Court of Australia.
20
21 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
22 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.- It
23 is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is
24 entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small
25 risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we
26 declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the
27 working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or
28 anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 We must also consider the following:
32
33 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
35 Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the
36 very essence of a federal system.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Again, in my view it is TREASON by the High Court of Australia and any Member of
40 Parliament/Minister to claim Australian Citizenship is a “nationality” as clear it is not and never
41 was. It means that any lawyer, judge, politician who claims to hold a nationality of “Australian
42 citizenship” is not qualified to be a Member of the Bar and/or being a judge of a court and/or
43 Member of Parliament! This then means we do not have any valid parliament in operation!
44 As this issue was extensively canvassed by me in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka in which I represented
45 myself, including a NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER served upon the
46 Commonwealth DPP as well as on all 9 Attorney Generals, and I succeeded in both appeals on
47 19 July 2006 without anyone challenging my written submissions whatsoever, then all matters I
48 placed before the court were deemed to have been conceded by the Commonwealth DPP as well
49 as by each and all Attorney General and is further beyond litigation and binds the
50 Commonwealth of Australia as well as all States/Teritories!.
51

23-5-2025 Page 12 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 13

1 This effectively means that all purported Members of Parliament are imposters and I view
2 committing serious criminal offences by pretending to be public officers. The same I view can be
3 applied to Ministers as none of then can claim to be “Subject of the British Crown” where they
4 have gone along with the nonsense of being a “Australian Citizens” as a nationality! After all
5 didn’t the High Court of Australia purportedly kicked out Heather Hill for being a “Subject of
6 the British Crown and ousted her from the Federal Parliament?
7
8 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: it has been claimed that certain politicians do not have to pay
9 certain taxations because of their (purported) standings.
10
11 #*#Gerrit: The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that all taxation must be
12 UNIFORM throughout the Commonwealth of Australia but can be on a sliding scale pending the
13 level of income, etc.
14
15 Likewise, the so called “not for profit” (non-profit) exemption is unconstitutional this as taxation
16 can only be applied on a sliding scale but not excluding anyone!
17
18 Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
19 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
20 In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the
21 Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be
22 uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
23 END QUOTE

24 .
25 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
28 The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
29 END QUOTE
30 And
31 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE
33 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the
34 Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in
35 Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The
36 Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a
37 sliding scale great injury will be avoided.
38 END QUOTE
39 .
40 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
41 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
42 But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years
43 after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the
44 conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times
50 you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it
51 is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be
52 imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come
53 under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law
54 has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
23-5-2025 Page 13 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 14

1 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question
2 whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal
3 legislation takes place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or
4 repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it
5 had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should
6 say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
7 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
13 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
14 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
15 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
16 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
17 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
18 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
19 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
20 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
21 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
22 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 Again:
26 As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become
27 absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that
28 law.
29
30 There is however more to it:
31
32 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. HIGGINS.-Ought you not to have the same phrase in sub-section (2) as you have in
35 sub-section (3) of clause 45?
36 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. That would get over the difficulty. If in sub-section (2) of clause 46
37 you put an express reference to a certain class of insolvency, that must exclude by
38 inference any other class of insolvency. There is another point, and this is also a very
39 serious one, to which the Premier of Victoria drew my attention before lunch. Sub-section
40 (3) of clause 46 provides that the seat of a senator or member of the House of
41 Representatives is to become vacant if he-
42 directly or indirectly accepts or receives any fee or honorarium for work done or service
43 rendered by him for and on behalf of the Commonwealth while sitting as such member.
44 No exception is made to meet the case of a Minister of the Crown. There is provision
45 made elsewhere in the Constitution for the payment of salary to Ministers for services
46 rendered to the Commonwealth, which might include his services as a senator. Clause
47 48A provides that-
48 Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator, and each member of the House of
49 Representatives, shall receive for his services an allowance of £400 a year, to be reckoned
50 from the day on which he takes his seat.
51 The allowance spoken of there might be regarded as an honorarium, or as a fee, but it is
52 an allowance for "services," which is the word used in sub-section (3) of clause 46.
53 END QUOTE
54
23-5-2025 Page 14 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 15

1 While the quotation below refers to “salary”, being paid for “work” the legal principle is that an
2 “allowance” is not a salary.
3
4 Hansard 21-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
5 QUOTE
6 Clause 43.-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each member, whether of the States
7 Assembly or of the House of Representatives, shall receive an allowance for his services of
8 four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
9 Mr. GORDON: I move:
10 To strike out the word "four," in the third line, with the view of inserting " five."
11 The ground for the motion is that £400 a year is insufficient. While some local
12 Parliaments are paying their resident mem- [start page 1032] bers £300 a year, £400 is not
13 enough for a member who has to leave-as most members of the Federal Parliament
14 would have to do-his colony and practically abandon his business or his profession.
15 He would have to rely either upon his private means or his parliamentary salary, which, in
16 this case, would be inadequate. I think, if £400 a year is fixed, the choice for members of
17 the House of Representatives will be limited to those who can afford to leave their business
18 or profession, and to those who are prepared to depend entirely on the small parliamentary
19 salary. While members of both of these classes are exceedingly desirable members of any
20 Parliament, I think it would be a mistake to have the whole Parliament consisting of them,
21 which the payment of the salary proposed would probably lead to. I think £500 is little
22 enough; the £100 makes all the difference to the ordinary professional or business man.
23 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: £400 is quite enough.
24 Sir EDWARD BRADDON: £100 too much.
25 Mr. GORDON: I think it is a question on which the sense of the Committee should be
26 taken, and, without further remark, I move the amendment.
27 Mr. HIGGINS: I think that, having regard to the fact that the Federal Parliament will
28 have much less to do than the ordinary local Parliaments after the first Parliament, £400 is
29 sufficient. I am as strongly in favor of payment of members, on the grounds alluded to by
30 Mr. Gordon, as any man, but I say that the work done in the States Parliaments takes far
31 more time than will the work in the Federal Parliament, after its first meeting. It is not
32 likely, indeed, that the Federal Parliament will sit more than two months in the year. I
33 should like to strike out "four," with a view to the insertion of "three." At the same time, as
34 £400 has been fixed as a compromise, I hope it will remain at that amount as the
35 maximum.
36 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: I consider that £400 is ample payment for the services of
37 members. In addition to that they possess the privilege of a free railway pass. The
38 amount proposed to be paid-£400-is twice as much as the Dominion Parliament of Canada
39 pays its members. I trust hon. members will not support the amendment to increase the
40 amount to £500.
41 Mr. TRENWITH: I hope that Mr. Gordon's amendment will be carried. We have no
42 right to assume that the Federal Parliament will not have a good deal to do. All our
43 experience teaches us that, as civilisation advances, the requirements of the people
44 increase, and the tendency to ask Parliament to do things, that in the past have been done
45 by private enterprise, is increasing very rapidly. I feel confident that the Federal
46 Parliament, instead of having less to do as time goes on, will have a great deal more to do.
47 I think that it will be found to the advantage of the States to hand over work to the central
48 Government. Of course, I can understand the objection that any sum is too much, by
49 those who disapprove of the principle of payment of members. But the principle of
50 payment of members has been adopted throughout all the colonies. It was adopted after a
51 good deal of resistance on the part of those who disapprove of it, which showed the strong
52 growing public feeling in favor of paying members for the work they do, and of looking
23-5-2025 Page 15 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 16

1 upon the position of a member of Parliament not merely as a position of honor, but rather
2 regarding them as State servants who are paid for their work. We are paid not merely to
3 reimburse us for expenses incurred, and to pay members of the Federal Parliament £500 a
4 year would be little enough, considering that during a portion of the year they will have to
5 be great distances from their established homes.
6 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It will cost them nothing to travel.
7 Mr. TRENWITH: That is a very popular delusion.
8 [start page 1033]
9 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Let them keep out of Parliament.
10 Mr. TRENWITH: That is exactly the idea. I say let the people have the widest possible
11 area of selection for Parliament in order that all sections may be represented.
12 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: To keep a lot of idle fellows doing nothing.
13 HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
14 Mr. TRENWITH: I am anxious that members of Parliament should not be idle fellows.
15 In the non-payment days a great many members were idle fellows who looked upon a seat
16 in Parliament as an addition to their social position, who cared very little for its worth, and
17 in some instances who paid themselves very handsomely by the opportunities they had.
18 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: You cannot say that with truth. That is a most scandalous
19 assertion!
20 Mr. TRENWITH: It is the truth.
21 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: Quite scandalous. You have no right to make such a statement.
22 Mr. TRENWITH: I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort, but when Sir
23 William Zeal talks about idle fellows, he brings upon himself, naturally and properly, the
24 rejoinder I have made.
25 Sir EDWARD BRADDON: A most unjust rejoinder.
26 Mr. TRENWITH: In some of the colonies the best lands and water-frontages-the very
27 eyes of the colonies, in fact-were mopped up by members of Parliament during the regime
28 of non-payment of members.
29 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: How many of them?
30 Mr. TRENWITH: As I said before I do not want to initiate a discussion of this sort.
31 Mr. WALKER: What you say may be the case in Victoria, you know.
32 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: It is a gross exaggeration.
33 Mr. TRENWITH: I am not speaking merely of Victoria. I lived during the early part of
34 my life in a nice little colony which suffered in the same way.
35 Mr. WALKER: Do you mean Van Diemen's Land?
36 Mr. TRENWITH: I mean Tasmania. I was pointing out that the instincts of our people
37 tend towards payment of members of Parliament for their work. My hon. friend, Sir
38 William Zeal, interjected that we have free railway passes. I would remark that any
39 person who knows anything about travel must recognise that it carries with it a large
40 amount of expense. Those who are here, away from their homes, know that if they
41 were getting £400 a year for this work, they would be losing money, and they would
42 not even be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred. Those who urge that the amount
43 should be left as proposed in the Bill, are not in favor of payment of members, but are
44 simply favorable to reimbursing members for the disbursements they make in connection
45 with the performance of their duties.
46 Mr. HIGGINS: I was always in favor of payment of members.
47 Mr. TRENWITH: I feel confident that my hon. friend Mr. Higgins could not have
48 looked thoroughly at the question or he would not have spoken as he did.
49 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: He is losing now ten times as much as he will ever get for
50 being here, but he is bearing it cheerfully.

23-5-2025 Page 16 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 17

1 Mr. TRENWITH: There are some who could not afford to lose anything at all.
2 Parliament is to be composed, as it ought to be, of representatives of all sections of the
3 community. There must be in Parliament some who cannot afford to lose anything at all,
4 and who must be paid for their services, and if those services are worth having, there ought
5 to be adequate remuneration for them. I sincerely hope that the higher figure will be [start
6 page 1034] adopted, not because I believe in extravagance, but because I believe that any
7 lesser sum will not pay members of Parliament for their work.
8 Question-That the word "four," proposed to be struck out, stand part of the question-put.
9 The Committee divided.
10 Ayes, 26; Noes, 9. Majority, 17.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Consider also:
14
15 When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the
16 amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses.
17
18 Reality is that Ministers as I understand it are having “Allowance(s)” as well as a salary!
19
20 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the
21 statutes of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it
22 should be put as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the
23 public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their
24 work, which they are not.
25
26 This underlines that Parliamentarians are not employed but are merely chosen volunteers who
27 are provided with a certain “allowance”
28
29 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
31 Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an
32 annual allowance for his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the
33 parliament from time to time. Until other provision is made in that behalf by the
34 parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.
35 Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting
36 here, except to suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I
37 think, the best that could be adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in
38 the clause as an allowance for services is a misdescription. It is really an allowance for
39 the reimbursement of expenses.
40 Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
41 Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the
42 statutes of those colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it
43 should be put as the reimbursement of expenses, because otherwise you get into the
44 public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a salary for their
45 work, which they are not.
46 Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at
47 all. Why not say that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall
48 receive an annual allowance? I move as an amendment:
49 That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
50 Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:
51 That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

23-5-2025 Page 17 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 18

1 If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies,
2 with reference to the payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought
3 to be inserted in the bill which are not inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act,
4 they will find provisions which take into consideration the salaries that are paid to
5 ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
6 officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the
7 [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament
8 lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present
9 contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already made.
10 Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was
11 being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the
12 Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions
13 in a rational manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely
14 to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
15 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are
16 likely to do well to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give
17 proper attention to further work to-night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to
18 what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in regard to the absence of provision on
19 matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was
20 concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
21 with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the
22 commonwealth in its first session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great
23 number of other matters of that kind. We have, therefore, given them power to deal with
24 this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a payment of members
25 bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
26 allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at
27 £500.
28 Motion agreed to; progress reported.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: Is pension compulsory payments applicable?
32
33 #*#Gerrit: As the Framers of the constitution made clear that the commonwealth takes its share
34 of Pension Payments and as every taxpayers’ pays about 7% of his taxes for old age retirement
35 then the Commonwealth cannot deny Age Pension Payments. In my view a person who through
36 hard work gained certain wealth should not be punished for this to be denied an Age Pension
37 payment as he/she contributed to the Pension Funds all along. It are the politicians who robbed
38 the Pension Funds, and also provided themselves with unconstitutional payments such as
39 superannuation benefits in violation of a persons pension payments rights. And now for the
40 Commonwealth to seek to charge taxation upon their superannuation funds I view is violation
41 the legal principles embedded in the constitution also!
42 In my view, once a person qualified by age for an Age
43 Pension then it is a constitutional right that cannot be
44 denied, suspended, etc.
45
46 Hansard 15-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I will ask the committee to keep the clause as it
49 stands, because I have an amendment prepared which, I think, will meet the whole case. I
50 propose to make the clause read in this way:-
23-5-2025 Page 18 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 19

1 If he is retained in the service of the Commonwealth all his existing or accruing rights
2 shall be preserved, and he shall be entitled to retire from office at the time and upon the
3 pension or retiring allowance permitted and provided by the law of the state on such
4 retirement, and the pension or retiring allowance shall be paid by the state and by the
5 Commonwealth respectively in the proportion which his service to the state bears to
6 his service with the Commonwealth.
7 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-Is there not some ambiguity about these words:-
8 If he is retained in the service of the Commonwealth he shall be entitled to retire from
9 office at the time and upon the pension or retiring allowance permitted and provided by the
10 law of the state on such retirement?
11 To what time does the clause refer? The date of the establishment of the Commonwealth,
12 or the date of the actual retirement?
13 Mr. BARTON.-An officer will be entitled to complete his service up to the time at
14 which, under the law of the state, he would be entitled to retire.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 Again, as for the Heather Hill case!
18
19 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
21 We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
22 in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
23 commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
24 country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
25 the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
26 should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
27 his appointment.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
32 Section 15 says the qualifications of a senator are to be those of a member of the house of
33 representatives. Section 31 says "until the parliament otherwise provides the qualification
34 of a member of the house of representatives shall be as follows":-I take it that under these
35 words it would be competent for the federal parliament to make provision for the
36 qualification of a member of the house of repre- [start page 1002] sentatives to be that he is
37 not a member of one of the state houses. That is a matter for the Drafting Committee. As
38 we have passed section 31, I do not propose an amendment. I simply intimate that, in my
39 opinion it is worth consideration whether, under section 31, it is not competent for the
40 federal parliament to enact that one of the qualifications of a member of either house
41 shall be that he does not hold office in any other colonial parliament. There must be a
42 serious dislocation with regard to the time of the leading men of the state parliament being
43 spent in the parliament of the commonwealth; there must be inconvenience; but that can be
44 got over if it be found that the duties of a member of a state parliament and of the
45 commonwealth parliament are inconsistent, and that both cannot be carried on. I hope that
46 the federal parliament will be empowered to enact that no man who is a member of a
47 state parliament shall hold a seat as member of the commonwealth parliament. I do
48 not want any absolute prohibition. I want to give the electors as free a hand as
49 possible, and experience will tell us which is the best course.
50 END QUOTE
51
52 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
53 QUOTE

23-5-2025 Page 19 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 20

1 Sir JOHN BRAY: What the hon. gentleman has said is quite right so far as the purposes
2 of this section are concerned as regards reckoning the time of retirement. But in another
3 part of the bill it is provided that the senators are to be paid for their services, and the
4 question arises, does the term of service of a senator for the purposes of payment begin
5 from the date of his election, from the date when he is sworn in, or from the first day of
6 January?
7 HON. MEMBERS: On the day when he is sworn in!
8 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Surely when his
9 service begins!
10 Sir: I think we ought to have that fixed. It seems to me very undesirable to provide, as
11 suggested by Colonel Smith, that although a senator is elected in June, his term of
12 service and payment for service shall not begin until the following January.
13 Mr. CLARK: He will not do anything until the following January!
14 Sir JOHN BRAY: For the purposes of retirement, a date should be fixed from which the
15 time should be reckoned; but for all other purposes a senator ought to be a senator from the
16 day he is chosen.
17 Mr. BAKER: How can he be when there is another man in his place?
18 Sir JOHN BRAY: I can quite see that for the purposes of this section the provision as
19 contained in the clause is right; but, as regards other portions of the bill, it seems to me that
20 it is not right, and the question ought to be clearly understood.
21 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: So far as the objection with regard to payment is concerned,
22 there is a good deal in it, and the matter should be dealt with now. The clause only deals
23 with the first senators. Afterwards the term of service begins on the 1st of January. I
24 suppose a senator can hardly be called a senator until the 1st of January arrives. He
25 will be a senator elect, but he will not be a senator really until that day. If parliament
26 is in session on the 1st of January, he will walk in and take his seat, and the other man
27 will walk out, and his pay, I apprehend, will begin on the same day. But the hon.
28 member has pointed out a blot with respect to the first senators. A man might be elected in
29 December and claim twelve months' pay, dating from the previous January. This, I think,
30 would be remedied by inserting in the second paragraph the words "for the purposes of his
31 retirement."
32 Mr. WRIXON: The matter will want a little thinking over, because I apprehend a
33 man is not a senator until he presents himself and takes the oath.
34 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why not?
35 Mr. WRIXON: He might refuse to take the oath, and so would be disqualified from
36 the beginning. It is not until be presents himself and takes the oath that he is really a
37 senator. He is in potentiality a senator; but he is not completely clad in that position until
38 he [start page 602] appears at the table and takes the oath, and I apprehend he is not
39 entitled to payment until that takes place. I would suggest that it is somewhat hazardous
40 to make an amendment at the table in a bill of this kind, which has been carefully
41 considered; and if these matters are home in mind, they can be afterwards dealt with by the
42 draftsman. I would deprecate any hurried amendment on the spot, where it may not be
43 required.
44 Sir HARRY ATKINSON: The clause states that the term of service of a senator
45 shall not begin until the 1st January following the day of his election. If a vacancy
46 occurs, and a senator is elected in June, he then becomes a senator; but, according to
47 this part of the clause, he cannot become an actual senator until the following
48 January. Though parliament might be in session, he would be unable to take his seat. I
49 would suggest to the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that he should take a note of this
50 point, and consider it. I do not think we could make any amendment here that would meet

23-5-2025 Page 20 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 21

1 the case. For the purposes of this particular clause the provision is right enough; but I think
2 there will be a difficulty in regard to payment, and also as to vacancies occurring.
3 Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook
4 this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon.
5 gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the
6 beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would
7 be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected
8 in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January,
9 and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite
10 possible that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems
11 to me clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this
12 section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an
13 amendment:
14 That before the words "The term of service" line 11, the words "For the purposes of this
15 section" be inserted.
16 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is quite correct: those are the right words!
17 Amendment agreed to.
18 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member, Sir
19 Harry Atkinson, in regard to vacancies occurring by death, the difficulty would be met by
20 substituting for the words "retiring senators" the words "senators retiring by rotation."
21 Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:
22 That the words retiring senators," line 17, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof
23 the words "senators retiring by rotation."
24 Mr. MARMION: Is this intended to refer to senators retiring by rotation throughout, or
25 only in the first instance?
26 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Always!
27 Mr. MARMION: It seems to me that there are two portions of the bill which may be
28 affected by the proposed amendment. In the first place, unless it is distinctly laid down in
29 the bill that a senator, though elected, does not become a senator until the 1st of January,
30 there will be during that interval twelve senators instead of eight; because there will be
31 four who will not retire for some considerable period after the election. There is another
32 view of the case. A senator may be prevented for a period from holding his seat in the
33 local house of representatives. When he is elected to the senate, he cannot sit any
34 longer in the state house of representatives, and if his election to the senate takes
35 place some time prior to the end of the year, unless it is distinctly laid down that the
36 mere fact of his election [start page 603] does not make him a senator, he will be
37 obliged to retire from the local house of representatives.
38 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: There is no doubt a little difficulty. In the cases of which we
39 have experience, members of parliament are elected by a constituency that may be said to
40 be in permanent session. Here we have to deal with the case of a constituency which is in
41 session only sometimes. We must, therefore, deal specially with it. There cannot be more
42 than eight senators at a time. There will be eight senators and four senators elect; for
43 a senator elect is not a senator until his term begins. There is no reason why a
44 member of the house of representatives should not be elected to be a senator in June;
45 next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a member of the house of
46 representatives.
47 Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 Again:
51
23-5-2025 Page 21 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 22

1 There is no reason why a member of the house of representatives should not be

2 elected to be a senator in June; next January he becomes a senator and ceases to be a
3 member of the house of representatives.
4
5 Meaning, a person holding a seat in one House could stand for a seat in the other House provided
6 there is no overlapping as a person cannot hold two seats being one in each House at the same
7 time. Therefore, if the Governor-General swears-in a person then that person must tat latest the
8 day before have vacated a seat held already.
9
10 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: What about a Member of Parliament / Minister going on a
11 political election campaign and charging cost against taxpayers (Consolidated Revenue Funds)?
12
13 #*#Gerrit: A Member of Parliament is providing a service that during debates can be political
14 however going on a political election campaign is not related to his/her service as a law maker
15 but of personal interest and therefore all and any cost involved for a political election campaign
16 cannot be charged against taxpayers (consolidated Revenue Funds)! Ministers are chosen by the
17 Governor-General (regardless of any political association) to represent all Australians their
18 interest and as such cannot then go on a political election campaign for private interest to serve
19 any political purpose, to aid or otherwise himself/herself or others. As such, any Member of
20 Parliament/Minister who claims associated cost against the Consolidated Revenue Funds I view
21 defraud the Commonwealth of Australia and so taxpayers and should be charged and by Sections
22 44 and 45 has any candidature status in any political election denied as well as any holding of a
23 Seat in the Parliament. Political elections are of a personal interest to each person and cannot be
24 associated with the duties and obligations of being a Member of Parliament or some public office
25 holding like a Minister, Speaker, President, etc.
26
27 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: There has been occasions where such as Scott Morrison engaged
28 in billions of dollars of contracts with pharmaceutical companies and agreeing that any dispute
29 be dealt with in the USA courts, etc. Is that constitutionally permissible?
30
31 #*#Gerrit: Not permissible at all. The High Court of Australia is ultimately the highest Court of
32 Australia other than the Privy Council in certain circumstances and therefore in my view Scott
33 Morrison, the Attorney General and others involved committed TREASON! The same with
34 Anthony Albanese in 2022 providing financial and military support to Ukraine where the
35 Governor-General had no at all published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR and as
36 such, I view this was TREASON, Fraud, etc, by him and his associates involved in it all
37
38 The same with the WHO where allegedly the Commonwealth of Australia by its
39 membership allows a foreign entity to dictate what we can or cannot do in violation of the
40 very FREEDOMS enshrined as legal principles in the Commonwealth of Australia
41 Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
42 The reason we have a constitution is so that our elected officials are to provide legal provisions
43 for “peace, order and good government” and not some foreign (enemy) entity dictates what we
44 can or cannot do.
45 Those who for example pursued the covid-19 scam MANDATES must be held legally
46 accountable for their TREASONOUS conduct and the harm inflicted upon the many!
47
48 Let us consider how much money was used regarding this all and so without a single ANNUAL
49 Appropriation Bill and/or any Special Appropriation Bill having been passed by any
50 Australian Parliament?
51
23-5-2025 Page 22 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 23

1 HANSARD 16-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. DEAKIN: They propose that the senate shall have equal power with the house of
4 representatives in respect of all bills, except money bills, so that in every other matter that
5 comes before the senate it stands as well equipped for dealing with legislation as does the
6 popular chamber. There should be a tribunal to which it would not be too difficult to
7 appeal in case of differences between the two houses on those measures; but, allowing that
8 to pass, my hon. colleague excepts from the control of the senate money bills, bills dealing
9 with customs and excise, and the annual appropriation bill. He does not say these may not
10 be rejected, but he says that they must not be amended; he believes that the second
11 chamber should only exercise its power with regard to money bills in such extreme cases
12 as those in which it will be prepared to reject the whole proposal put before it, but should
13 not meddle with the financial affairs of the country by entering into the details of those
14 proposals. The 2nd resolution says:
15 The act of union shall provide that it shall not be lawful to include in the annual
16 appropriation bill any matter or thing other than the votes of supply for the ordinary service
17 of the year.
18 What this means is that every money bill which may be a bill involving a question of
19 policy shall come to the second chamber independently, and the second chamber shall, if
20 it please, be entitled to reject that measure, to challenge the opinion of the country
21 upon it, and to say that until the opinion of the country is pronounced, that measure
22 shall not pass into law. Are not these large and sufficient powers?
23 END QUOTE
24
25 ****INSPECTOR-RIKATI®: When do you view should a budget regarding Taxation Bills and
26 Appropriation Bills be submitted to the Parliament?
27
28 #*#Gerrit: The Framers of the Constitution provided an about 6 months’ time frame, in case the
29 Senate rejects it twice and a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION were to be held as to ensure it all is
30 passed before the 1st of July for the next financial year as all TAXATION Acts and
31 Appropriation Act have only a 1 financial year life time! Once the Acts are commenced on the
32 1st of July no interim bills can be passed by the Houses either to amend or otherwise alter what
33 was provided for. After all, businesses need to be able to work out their contractual issues having
34 a knowledge as to what taxation is to be applicable for the next financial year!
35
36 There is a lot more to it but for the moment let us consider the above and deal with the
37 TRAITORS, TERRORIST, Fraudsters, imposters, etc.
38
39 Well Service Australia/Centrelink seemingly permitted by the Ministers are stealing my Age
40 Pension Payments rights which I view is part of the TERRORISM inflicted upon me and my
41 now Late wife Olga Hlavka-Schorel and I view so to say heads must roll and they need all to be
42 held legally accountable.
43
44 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

49 (Our name is our motto!)
23-5-2025 Page 23 © 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
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati