ISSUE: Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am obviously aware of and considering the legal principles

embedded in the constitution. In my view KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
High Court of Australia was wrongly decided. In my view the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is in
conflict with s51(xxvi) and Section 25 of the constitution and (xxix)external affairs powers cannot be
used as such to conflict with s25 and s51(xxi) neither could the 1967 referendum to include Aboriginals
as a race somehow alter the true meaning and application of ss51(xxvi) merely by amending the meaning
and application of the constitution as to what may be going on in international matters. Hansard 17-4-1897
Constitution Convention Debates Mr. SYMON: QUOTE There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that
many of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here. END QUOTE

Therefore, the comments by the court that changing conditions in international law since 1900 (to
Federate) somehow impact upon how constitutional provisions are applied/expended I view as sheer and
utter nonsense! Indeed, no person could ever enter into a contract if afterwards the meaning of words
and/or the application was to be changed merely because of changing circumstances afterwards. The
terms of contract must be held to be as applicable at the time when the contract was entered into. The
same with the constitution! (http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/turnbull-sticks-with-offend-and-insult/)
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia GIBBS C.J. QUOTE 14. It would be a mistake to suppose
that s. 51(xxvi) was included in the Constitution only for the purpose of enabling the Parliament to make laws for the special protection of people
of particular races. Quick and Garran, in their Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901), correctly observed, at p. 623, that
by "sub-sec. xxvi the Federal Parliament will have power to pass special and discriminating laws relating to 'the people of any race'." Such laws
might validly discriminate against, as well as in favour of, the people of a particular race. END QUOTE

It is remarkable that the court quoted Quick & Garran and not at all the Hansard of the constitutional
convention itself. Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: QUOTE One of them is to deal
with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori
race in New Zealand. END QUOTE The 1967 amendment merely included Aboriginals as a race not to change the

meaning of ss51(xxvi) otherwise as to any race that could be subjected to legislation within this
subsection! Clearly no laws in favour as claimed by Quick & Garran could be used against the general
community. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 clearly defies this legal principle embedded in the
constitution and hence is for this unconstitutional!
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting For the purposes of the
last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the
Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that
State shall not be counted. END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) (SECTION 51) QUOTE (xxvi) the people of
any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws; END QUOTE

While personally I oppose racial discrimination, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my personal views are

irrelevant, as it is what the constitution is providing for that is relevant.
Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is an
expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution, where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in
the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United
Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties
themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any
important legal consequences. The expression, I think, ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time
comes. END QUOTE and Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; Dr. QUICK.- QUOTE The Constitution

empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate
for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could
only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise
of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens. END QUOTE

Ss51(xxix) external powers couldnt be used to undermine ss51(xxvi) race powers as it conflict with the
intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. Hence, racial discrimination is embedded in the constitution
(within ss51(xxvi), and cannot be denied by using ss51(xxix) external affairs powers. Indeed the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 undermines the application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution
in ss51(xxvi). The mistake was to amend ss51(xxvi) by the 1967 referendum as this ss51(xxvi) was
intended to protect Australian jobs!
p1
20-11-2015
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
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997) KIRBY J. : QUOTE One highly
influential international statement on the understand of universal and fundamental rights is the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. That document is not a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a
treaty at all. It is not part of Australias domestic law, still less of its Constitution. END QUOTE Gaudron J
(Wakim, HCA27\99) QUOTE:.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search
for the intention of its makers END QUOTE Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association) QUOTE...
But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain constant.
We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be
accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. END QUOTE

While the court referred to that ss. 92, 113 and 116 couldnt be evaded they ignored s25! This, as
clearly the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 conflicts with this section also!
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia MASON J. (AT 3) QUOTE No one doubts that these
activities on the part of Australia properly fall within the scope of "external affairs", notwithstanding that international and regional co-operation
of this kind and on this scale was unknown in 1900 and only began with the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations. END
QUOTE MASON J. QUOTE 5. Of course, it is of paramount importance that the power is expressed as a legislative power and that, like the
other grants of power in s. 51, it is plenary with respect to the subject-matter. In accordance with the received canon of constitutional construction
it is to be construed liberally, not narrowly and pedantically END QUOTE MASON J. QUOTE 8. It is a well settled principle of the common
law that a treaty not terminating a state of war has no legal effect upon the rights and duties of Australian citizens and is not incorporated into
Australian law on its ratification by Australia END QUOTE MASON J. QUOTE 10. The exercise of the power is of course subject to the express
and to the implied prohibitions to be found in the Constitution. The Commonwealth could not, in legislating to give effect to a treaty, evade the
constitutional prohibitions contained in ss. 92, 113 and 116. Nor, to take an example posed in argument, could it amend the Constitution
otherwise than by the means provided for in s. 128; it certainly could not do so by the expedient of assuming a treaty obligation to amend the
Constitution and then attempting to legislate directly without resort to s.128 so as to give effect to that treaty obligation. END QUOTE MASON
J. QUOTE 17. Doubtless the framers of the Constitution did not foresee accurately the extent of the expansion in international and regional cooperation which has occurred since 1900. Extradition and the repatriation of fugitive offenders and customs and tariff agreements probably
represented the type of treaties which were then thought to call for domestic legislation by way of implementation. It is that expansion, rather than
any change in the meaning of "external affairs" as a concept, that promises to give the Commonwealth an entree into new legislative fields. END
QUOTE MASON J. QUOTE 22. One knows or can readily imagine treaties on topics of international concern by which the parties agree to enact
domestic legislation to attain a common object, whether it be to suppress a noxious traffic or trade, to eliminate an infectious or contagious
disease, or to limit production of a commodity or of goods in order to stabilize and share markets. The subject-matter of such treaties is, despite
the argument of the Solicitor-General for Victoria to the contrary, international in character - there is agreement by the parties to take common
action in pursuit of a common international objective, each party standing to gain a benefit from its attainment. END QUOTE KOOWARTA V.
BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia MURPHY J QUOTE. It is therefore unnecessary to deal with the extent to
which that power can lend support to those sections and other parts of the Act, although in my opinion, it can do so in the way submitted by the
Commonwealth. In par. (xxvi) "for" means "for the benefit of". It does not mean "with respect to", so as to enable laws intended to affect
adversely the people of any race. END QUOTE MURPHY J.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON.- QUOTE Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to
elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the
existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to
the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is
secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a
people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution
with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of
whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have
sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is
something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in
that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions
arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High
Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution
shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution
shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the
arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for
the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not
become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a
Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may
have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will
not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution,
will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided
for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE

In my view the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional, and well that includes s18C also!
Next time, consult a constitutionalist before amending the constitution, this as ss51(xxvi) defies belief and
common sense! Why include Aboriginals to discriminate against and then denies discrimination, and
instead discriminate against the general community that is in defiance of the constitution?
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all relevant issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

p2
20-11-2015
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
Email: [email protected]. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati