Page 1

1
2
3 Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications 30-9-2024
4 Email PO Box 6100
5 Parliament House
6 Canberra ACT 2600
7 [email protected]
8 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
9 Re -SUBMISSION-Supplement 1
10 Sir/Madam,
11 As I previously quoted:
12
13 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
14 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
15 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
16 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
17 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
18 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
19 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Then we also have to consider:
23
24 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
25
26 Part V—Powers of the Parliament
27 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
28 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
29 make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
30 Commonwealth with respect to:
31
32 I understand that the High Court of Australia previously claimed that “peace, order, and good
33 government” has no meaning and is not applicable, however this would be tantamount to the
34 High Court of Australia tampering with the constitution. It has no judicial powers to amend/alter
35 the constitution.
36
37 Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
38 QUOTE
39 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the
40 only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
41 commonwealth.
42 END QUOTE
43
44
30-9-2024 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 HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
3 There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line
4 would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the
5 principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the
6 noblest child of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has
7 strengthened the liberties of our people-then,
8 END QUOTE
9
10 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
11 Australasian Convention)
12 QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
13 I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover
14 that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be
15 expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation
16 for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the
17 matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the
18 ambit of those specified.
19 The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration
20 of the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of
21 Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the
22 federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, order, and good government of
23 the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that
24 certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
25 commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full
26 powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to
27 them to decide whether their legislation was for the peace, order, and good
28 government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying
29 definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government
30 of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
31 consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether,
32 therefore, they had better not be left out of the bill altogether.
33 a. The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered
34 by the Drafting Committee.
35 Amendment negatived.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
39 Australasian Convention)
40 QUOTE
41 Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a
42 position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that
43 law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the
44 Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no
45 power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
46 revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even
47 when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it
48 has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I
49 should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be
50 settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and
51 that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
52 END QUOTE
53
54 Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
55 QUOTE

30-9-2024 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 Mr. ISAACS.-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52
2 we find these governing words on the very forefront of that clause-
3 That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power
4 and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
5 Commonwealth.
6 We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states. We
7 have our Constitution framed in this way with a Senate to guard what? The interests of
8 the states, so that the Commonwealth shall not intrude one inch into what is retained
9 as the executive rights and jurisdiction of the states.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
13 Convention)
14 QUOTE
15 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
16 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
17 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
18 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
19 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
20 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
24 Convention)
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
27 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection
28 under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the
29 ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to
30 the Commonwealth.
31 END QUOTE
32
33
34 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. ISAACS.-Higher up in the clause you will see that it says that, whatever is taken
37 over, the state is to "indemnify the Commonwealth."
38 Mr. HOLDER.-If the words I have quoted have the meaning which Mr. Reid says they
39 have, it disposes of my first point. My next point is that in clause 52, it is provided that the
40 Federal Parliament shall have the power of "borrowing money on the public credit of the
41 Commonwealth"; and there is no provision anywhere that I know of in this Constitution to
42 limit the expenditure of money so borrowed. There are limits to the expenditure of
43 revenue. It would be quite impossible during the five years to render special aid to, any
44 state under the clause we have agreed to to-day, because the revenue is appropriated. But
45 the provision I have quoted deals with borrowed money, and I know [start page 1114] of
46 nothing in this Constitution which would limit or control the expenditure of borrowed
47 money except the Loan Act of the Federal Parliament which authorizes the loan.
48 Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
49 Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
50 Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the
51 Federal Parliament thought fit.
52 Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the
53 point. I see that, according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the
54 Federal Parliament to borrow money on the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again
30-9-2024 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 that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of that money except the limitation
2 which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the money. Of
3 course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for
4 instance, and in such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there
5 anything anywhere to prevent a Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament
6 authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the proceeds of which loan might be
7 divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their needs, or
8 upon some other principle?
9 Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.
10 Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and
11 good government of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
12 Mr. HOLDER.-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:-
13 The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and
14 authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth,
15 with respect to all or any of the matters following.
16 Well, that includes the borrowing of money.
17 Mr. ISAACS.-It is the Commonwealth as distinguished from the state that is to borrow;
18 the money is only to be borrowed for the purposes of the Commonwealth.
19 Mr. REID.-Look at clause 81, where it is clearly set out that-
20 All revenues raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth,
21 under the authority of this Constitution, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund,
22 to be appropriated for the public service of the Commonwealth in the manner and
23 subject to the charges provided by this Constitution.
24 Mr. HOLDER.-With all due respect, I do not think that that clause applies.
25 Mr. REID.-Yes; it covers every appropriation issued from the Treasury.
26 Mr. HOLDER.-I do not think so. I think clause 81 deals with revenue.
27 Mr. REID.-You receive revenue, and you appropriate money for expenditure.
28 Mr. HOLDER.-I do not suppose it is intended that the term "Consolidated Revenue
29 Fund," used in clause 81, shall include both revenue and loan money. We are surely
30 going to keep these two separate.
31 Mr. REID.-There is no provision of that sort.
32 END QUOTE
33
34
35 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
36 Australasian Convention)
37 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
38 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
39 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
40 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
41 charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the
42 whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
43 END QUOTE
44 And
45 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
48 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
49 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
50 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
51 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
30-9-2024 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 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
2 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
5 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
8 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
9 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
10 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
11 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
12 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
13 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
14 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
15 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
16 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
17 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
18 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
19 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
20 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 What we can notice from the above quotations is that the High Court of Australia lacks any
24 judicial powers as to amendment the true meaning and application of the legal principles
25 embedded in the constitution.
26
27 We also know that John Howard claimed to invade Iraq with its mass murder and bombing it
28 back into the Stone Age allegedly because of WMD’s (Weapons of mass Destruction) this even
29 so more than 2 decades later they still haven’t located any.
30
31 Then we have Scott Morrison PM and then subsequently Anthony Albanese (Travelling Pete) to
32 provide monies, equipment, weapons, etc, to Ukraine for which in my view no constitutional
33 Authority is. We have the Federal Government raising taxation but as the Framers of the
34 Constitution made clear (as I in the past extensively canvassed and is published at my blog
35 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikatyi that taxation laws can only apply for the particular
36 financial year following enactment and not beyond. Also that they need to marry up with the
37 Appropriation Bills for that year.
38
39 Clearly where the Commonwealth is borrowing monies for the purchase of submarines, etc, then
40 it cannot claim it can use taxpayers monies as a give away to Ukraine or other countries.
41 External Affairs is not for this robbery of the Commonwealth Revenue funds!
42
43 Politicians (regardless of which major political party) are using mis/disinformation to claim that
44 what ever the do is justified, and we saw with the about 1995 pre-planned invasion into Iraq
45 for its oil that the WMD was a scam!
46
47 https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-war-and-globalization-americas-roadmap-of-conquest-
48 blueprint-for-global-domination/5633787
49 Video: War and Globalization, America’s Roadmap of Conquest, Blueprint for Global
50 Domination: Michel Chossudovsky
51 By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
52 QUOTE

30-9-2024 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 Six months after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq: Michel Chossudovsky’s September 2003
2 presentation at McMaster University, Ontario.
3 Selected Excerpts from the Lecture
4 The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched
5 at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War
6 and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
7 There is a roadmap, a sequence of wars.
8 The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s.
9 A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that
10 the objective of the war is oil. “to protect the United States’ uninterrupted, secure U.S.
11 access to oil.
12 In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House,
13 the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination
14 under the title: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”

15 The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the

16 Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign
17 Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
18 The PNAC’s declared objective is quite simple – to:
19 “Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars”.
20 This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war
21 theaters in different regions of the World.
22 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice
23 President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential
24 elections.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Ukraine very much in my view is like that. It has nothing to do with Australia’s national security
28 as Ukraine as the Russian federation has not been attacking the Commonwealth of Australia and
29 neither has its warships been entering the territorial waters of the commonwealth of Australia.
30 Hence, any military involvement regarding the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian
31 Federation has nothing to with the powers of the Commonwealth of Australia.
32 It must be understood that the Defense powers and that of External Affairs are separate powers
33 and one cannot invoke Defense powers merely by claiming that it may relate to External Affairs.
34
35 It must be clear that often Ministers are nothing less then bloody murderers to support war
36 mongering well outside their Ministerial powers. I raised this issue in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
37 and based my submissions on constitutional provisions and neither the Commonwealth DPP or
38 any of the 9 Attorney-Generals challenged my written submissions whatsoever and I
39 comprehensively succeeded in both appeals!
40
41 It is now claimed that the commonwealth will seek to invoke Big Tech to do its dirty work and
42 prevent by this persons like myself to have FACTS and the TRUTH published, but that would in

30-9-2024 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 my view be unconstitutional. By this the relevant minister violating my and others constitutional
2 rights siding with UN, WHO and W.E.F. would be violating Section 44 of the constitution and
3 by this invoke Section 45 to instantly lost his/her seat in the Parliament.
4
5 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
6 Convention)
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. ISAACS.-If you were to bring in a Bill to impose one tax, would it include a power
9 to repeal another on the same subject?
10 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly.
11 Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.
12 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We have the ablest lawyers divided on this question, and what is the
13 layman to do?
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
17 Convention)
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those
20 people who cannot agree.
21 MR. REID.-The lawyers.
22 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
23 Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.
24 Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is
25 no clause or sub-clause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from
26 Heaven, that would not be the subject of litigation.
27 Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
28 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
29 Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
30 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Looking at the clause from a common-sense point of view, are the
31 provisions a vital condition of the Constitution? Was it worth our while to spend days and
32 weeks thrashing out these matters as a compromise to the financial scheme? We are
33 dealing now with one of the great compromises of our financial scheme. Is that
34 compromise, of vital importance in the financial scheme, to be made a matter of simple
35 procedure in the House, liable to the judgment of a Speaker or a President? Or is it, like
36 hundreds of other things, embedded in the Constitution, so that, if at any time there be an
37 infringement, the law passed would be invalid, and the High Court would protect the
38 people of the country? Apart from all legal quibbles, that seems to be the plain English of
39 the fact. Speaking as an ex-Treasurer, I say that it is impossible to safeguard you in the
40 third section. I would be quite willing to put in the word "proposition," or "Bill," or
41 anything of the kind. All the arguments used to-day are valid against the third sub-clause.
42 But, as against the other sub-clauses, looking at it as a matter of English, and as clearly
43 defining the rights in the Constitution, it seems to me that they ought not to be disturbed.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
47 Australasian Convention)
48 QUOTE
49 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-
50 and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers
51 for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall
52 get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our
53 schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could
30-9-2024 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 complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the
2 amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
3 amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree?
4 Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave
5 this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for
6 that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. Not that I
7 believe that it will be carried, but I think it is an echo of a widespread misapprehension
8 which prevails outside as to the duties and functions of the Supreme Court. It very often
9 seems hard to a layman that that which has been enacted by Parliament should be declared
10 to be illegal by a Supreme Court when the statute is called into question during litigation
11 between two citizens. It is hard, but like everything else in politics, it is a choice of evils.
12 The question is: Whether it would not be of much greater disadvantage to the whole
13 community to bring in the Supreme Court as an interpreter of the Constitution before any
14 precise case was taken before it, than it is to leave the individual to suffer the hardship of
15 finding that the Act upon which he relied was really invalid? I will not use my own
16 language in explaining the position, but, to have it put upon record, I should like to quote a
17 passage which occurs on pages 154 and 155 of Dicey's Law of the Constitution. After
18 pointing out that the American Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution, and to
19 see that effect is given to its provisions, the writer goes on to say that-
20 The power, moreover, of the courts, which maintains the Articles of the Constitution as
21 the law of the land, and thereby keeps each authority within its proper sphere, is exerted
22 with an ease and a regularity which has astonished and perplexed continental critics. The
23 explanation is that the Judges of the United States control the action of the Constitution,
24 but they perform merely judicial functions, since they never decide anything but the cases
25 before them. It is natural to say that the Supreme Court pronounces Acts of Congress
26 invalid, but in fact this is not so. The court never directly pronounces any opinion whatever
27 upon an Act of Congress.
28 [start page 1687]
29 What the court does do is simply to determine A. is or is not entitled to recover judgment
30 against X.; but in determining that case the court may decide that any Act of Congress is
31 not to be taken into account, since it is an Act beyond the constitutional powers of
32 Congress.
33 If any one thinks this is a distinction without a difference he shows some ignorance of
34 politics, and does not understand how much the authority of a court is increased by
35 confining its action to purely judicial business.
36 In a book prepared by you, sir, entitled A Manual of Reference for the use of Members of
37 the National Australasian Convention, to which frequent reference has been made, the
38 matter is further dealt with. You say, at page 126, in words that I would like to adopt as
39 part of my argument:-
40 No doubt the power given is very great, but it is exercised in a manner and by a body
41 which affords the least possible chance of friction and quarrels between the central and the
42 provincial governments. A veto by the central authority has to be exercised at a time when
43 the public attention of the provincial electors is directed to the matter; at a time when,
44 perhaps, party spirit runs high, when angry passions pervade both factions, and when the
45 subject-matter is invested with an importance which is not intrinsic, whereas a declaration
46 by a court that the statute is invalid is withdrawn from the sphere of politics. Each
47 individual and each state looks upon it that such declaration is given only in pursuance of
48 the Constitution. Public attention is probably directed to other matters, and the question
49 has, in many cases, shrunk into its native insignificance; and "it is to the interest of every
50 man who wishes the Federal Constitution to be observed that the judgments of the federal
51 tribunals should be respected, and they take it that the courts are the protectors of the
30-9-2024 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 federal compact, and that the federal compact is, in the long run, the guarantee of the rights
2 of the separate state."
3 If the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) was carried into effect-though of
4 that, I think, there is not the slightest chance-it would follow that any person who was
5 aggrieved by an unconstitutional enactment would have to persuade the Attorney-General
6 of the state or of the Commonwealth, as the case might be, to in some way set the law in
7 motion to ascertain the legality of the enactment, If the enactment was one which affected
8 a matter exciting strong party feeling, the result would be that the abstract question of its
9 validity would have to be argued before the court at a time when public feeling was
10 excited, although it would be of the utmost importance that the decision of the court should
11 be entirely free from all suspicion of political bias. Then, too, the enactment might be valid
12 in parts and invalid in other parts, or it might be impossible to interpret it in the abstract. It
13 is impossible to foresee the bearing of a statute upon all possible cases, and it is only when
14 a case comes for determination before a court that the court is able to say that in that
15 particular case the statute does or does not afford protection to the citizen who has relied
16 upon it. The honorable member's proposal would remove at once the greatest of all
17 safeguards to the impartiality and usefulness of the Federal Court, by taking away from it
18 its right to deal with matters which are brought, as lawyers term it, to a distinct issue, and
19 with precise and definite points, in regard to which the full bearing of every word of the
20 judgment could be appreciated? Instead of the court being able to determine the legality of
21 an enactment in its bearing upon any particular case, there would be considerations
22 introduced which were utterly foreign to the atmosphere of the tribunal, and that would
23 seriously impair the public confidence in a court which, with us, as in America, will, I
24 believe, prove to be the ultimate protector of the liberties of the people. Then, too, the
25 amendment is in its form so complicated that its practical working will be impossible. The
26 honorable member said truly that the Attorney-General constantly intervenes now. But he
27 intervenes at the expense of the individual. The individual presents his case, and gives a
28 guarantee for costs. Under this proposal all that would happen would be that the individual
29 who wanted to assert [start page 1688] his right would have a barrier placed between him
30 and the obtaining of justice. He would have to satisfy the Attorney-General for the time
31 being that he would be able to pay the costs of any action, and he would have to bring
32 sufficient political pressure to bear upon that officer to get him to move in the case, and
33 finally he would be left to contest the matter in his own interests and in his own name. The
34 result would be that the rights and liberties of every citizen in the community would
35 be placed at the mercy of a chance parliamentary majority.
36 Mr. GORDON.-That is the position now-the rights and liberties of every individual are at
37 the mercy of a parliamentary majority.
38 Mr. WISE.-The honorable member is now speaking of rights in respect to legislation. If
39 the Parliament of South Australia were to pass a law contravening the Merchant Shipping
40 Act
41 Mr. GORDON.-I am not speaking of Imperial legislation.
42 Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Parliament of South Australia wanted to get rid of the Plimsoll
43 Mark Act-even though there were a majority it would be invalid, but according to the
44 honorable member, when, we have here a case exactly analogous, if the Constitution limits
45 the power of the state, and enacts that certain powers shall belong exclusively to the
46 Commonwealth Parliament, and that if the state deals with them it invades the authority of
47 the Commonwealth Parliament, the individual is to have no rights unless he can persuade
48 the Government of the day to take up his case. It is in the interests of the poorer and
49 uninfluential classes of the community, it is. in the interests of the minority, that this
50 amendment should be rejected, because it places an obstacle in the way of obtaining
51 that justice which ought to be free to every individual in the community.
30-9-2024 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 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to add my protest against this new clause. I am
2 bound to say something, because the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) says it is only the
3 conservative and timid lawyers who would venture to oppose this proposal.
4 Mr. GORDON.-I did not say that. I said as a rule the legal profession is, according to
5 Herbert Spencer, a timid and conservative class.
6 Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be so, and if the honorable member says he did not make that
7 statement it is all right. Anyhow, I thought he said that only conservative and timid lawyers
8 would oppose this clause. There is no doubt the intention of the honorable member is
9 excellent. He wants to diminish litigation. If he can show that this will diminish litigation
10 to any material extent, and, at the same time, will not involve us in a great many dangers to
11 our liberties, I will go with him, but he has not shown anything of the sort. As Mr. Wise
12 has shown, it will throw an unpopular minority into the power of a chance Ministry of the
13 day. We must see to-day that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals,
14 are preserved in the Constitution. I think Sir John Forrest said that I personally had not
15 got sufficient respect for the rights of individuals.
16 Sir JOHN FORREST.-No.
17 Mr. HIGGINS.-Do I understand him to refer merely to private property?
18 Sir JOHN FORREST.-Not the same respect as I have.
19 Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest
20 pedestal, and by contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were
21 carried, an unpopular individual, to obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in
22 hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the day. I was thinking of the pig-tail
23 case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time ago, where an
24 abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in
25 regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence.
26 That law was declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. I ask honorable
27 members to consider the great difficulty there would be in getting the Federal Congress or
28 Federal Executive to interfere in the case of Chinamen, so as to enforce their rights in such
29 a case. There was an exceptional law which should never have been passed. It was
30 distinctly a persecuting law. Any practical politician would see the great difficulty there
31 would be in appealing to a Federal Executive, especially if there was an election
32 approaching, to enforce the just rights of Chinamen in such a case. The same thing might
33 happen supposing a federal law were passed which was outside the Constitution.
34 Supposing that a majority of the state concerned happened to regard the man as unpopular
35 supposing a law were passed that no one bearing the name of Jones should be admitted into
36 the state of Virginia, the law might be directed against a certain person named Jones, and it
37 would be unconstitutional, and Jones could not enforce his rights to go into that state. I ask,
38 is he to be compelled to go cap in hand to the Attorney-General of the state of Virginia to
39 enforce his rights? I feel that, with the very best intentions my honorable friend is making
40 the gravest of mistakes. So far as regards the main purport of the amendment, it would
41 mean this: That you could only get a point of this sort decided by having a state or
42 Commonwealth intervening as a party. You would turn judicial questions into political
43 questions. You would proclaim-"Here is a question between the state and the
44 Commonwealth; here is a political question"; and you would make the Judges partisans. It
45 is one of the great advantages of private persons being able to raise these points, and not
46 the states or the Commonwealth, that you keep the judicial bench free from the taint of
47 political partisanship. I feel that the more you look at this thing all round, the more
48 inconsistent it is with the very first principles of justice. It may be said-Even supposing the
49 law does go beyond the Constitution in some degree, surely it ought not to be left to a
50 private person to upset it." I say it ought to be upset at once and at the very earliest point.
51 As soon as ever you find it has gone beyond the bounds you ought to say-"This thing is
30-9-2024 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 illegal." Otherwise you will leave to the Ministry of the day these powers of which you are
2 so careful, giving them to a majority of the states and to a majority of the people. You
3 would allow the Ministry of the day to exercise a suspending power as to whether it would
4 enforce a law or not, which is most dangerous. It is one thing to induce a Government or
5 Parliament to pass an unjust law, and it is quite another thing to induce a Government for
6 one excuse or another to hold its hand from acting. What I fear is that you would often
7 induce the Government to withhold its hand from acting, for fear it would incur
8 opprobrium or unpopularity. I sincerely hope the amendment will not be carried.
9 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-Of course the objections raised are those I expected,
10 only I think they might have been put with even greater force. And there is a great deal
11 more to be said in favour of my motion than I have been able to say. I agree at once with
12 the interpretation of Mr. Wise that this measure is a simple method of amending the
13 Constitution by acquiescence. I intended it to be so, and that is not a demerit-it is a merit-of
14 the proposal. As for the argument that you might as well have no Constitution at all if you
15 allow amendment by acquiescence, that seems rather wide of the mark. People going into a
16 partnership lay down the general terms of that partnership, but they may be qualified by
17 consent. But you must have in your partnership general rules laid down. There are the
18 general lines laid down in the Constitution, which within certain limits may [start page
19 1690] be modified as agreed, so that the honorable and learned gentleman's argument in
20 that view, I think, fell to the ground. Mr. Higgins enforced the argument as to the rights of
21 the individual. Now, I have already said that I think those individual rights should be
22 subordinated to the general rights of the community, and to their interests as expressed in
23 the law for the time being. I object altogether to the objection that party faction would
24 govern. What would govern it would be the sense of the community for the time being.
25 However, as there appears to be no hope of carrying the proposal, I must content myself by
26 submitting it to the committee.
27 Mr. Gordon's proposed new clause was negatived.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Hansard 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Let it be the duty of the President for the time being to certify that the proposed
33 law was in compliance with this section. It will then be his duty before putting in such law-
34 Mr. REID: The Senate could make a Standing Order to meet that.
35 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No; in order to prevent any doubt arising among the representatives of the
36 smaller colonies that they might be injured, I would suggest to Mr. Barton to adopt that mode, and make it
37 appear that, while the Court had no right to interfere with the Act when it was once law, yet before it
38 became law every opportunity should be taken to see that that section is not infringed. I would leave it
39 to the President of the Senate to certify, either by himself or on a resolution of the Senate, that the proposed
40 law was in accordance with this section, so that there would be a statutory duty on him to consider before the
41 law was passed that there was no infringement of it.
42 Mr. GORDON: It might be passed in one, sitting.
43 Mr. BARTON: Would you prevent the Governor giving his consent without the certificate?
44 [start page 589]
45 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Something like that. I quite agree with the smaller States that there should be
46 some provision by which they could not be injured, but I feel very loth to go the full length of giving the
47 court power to interfere with the Bill when it is passed.
48 Mr. MCMILLAN: Perhaps a bewildered layman might mention what I understand to be the exact
49 position. I understand if we add the word "proposed" before "laws" it would then be really a matter of
50 procedure, and that the introduction of the word "proposed" before "laws" would make it practically a Bill,
51 and that otherwise the question of whether the measure is constitutional could not be dealt with.
52 Mr. BARTON: It will prevent the High Court from inquiring into it.
53 Mr. MCMILLAN: According to the amendment proposed, it would prevent any mere slip of procedure
54 from making invalid an Act which may affect the whole country and its financial operations, but nothing
55 which we may enact with regard to procedure will prevent any suitor from going to the High Court if
56 the Act is essentially unconstitutional. That is the way I look at it, and it seems to me that either putting in
30-9-2024 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 "proposed" before "laws," or adding an amendment somewhere or other making it clear that no mere slip of
2 procedure can invalidate the law, would meet all the difficulties.
3 Mr. BARTON: This is not proposed to cover mere slips, but everything.
4 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to legislate for a very
5 limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers in the world. I do not know
6 whether Federation will do away with lawyers.
7 Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.
8 Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same time it does seem that
9 there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put into operation for a mere breach of
10 procedure, if there is such a chance.
11 Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.
12 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it, unless he were
13 instructed by a less moral lawyer.
14 Mr. HIGGINS: There seems to have been infused in this debate an amount of spirit, and I am going to
15 incur the risk of the ordinary peacemaker. There has been no reference to the common-sense provisions
16 which are put into all articles of association with regard to digressions from the prescribed routine. On the
17 one hand, there is no doubt that there is no covert design to injure the smaller States and their representatives,
18 by attempting to impose upon them laws which are not in the ordinary course as prescribed. I think the
19 members for the minor States will accept that assurance. But, on the other band, there is no desire on the part
20 of the minor States advocates to give the lawyers more work than they can possibly help. But there is no
21 doubt that these sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 53 are calculated to lead to questions in the courts which
22 ought to be avoided if possible. Take sub-section 3:
23 Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties Customs on imports, shall deal with one subject
24 of taxation only.
25 What is meant by one subject of taxation? Suppose a land tax is imposed, you tax posts and rails. That
26 may be argued not to be a law dealing with one subject. There are questions which will certainly arise which
27 will be fruitful in litigation unless we take great care. Therefore, I am in thorough accord with the desire of
28 the Premier of New South Wales to have some clause which will obviate the bringing of these trivial matters
29 into the court, and under which a great wrong will be done on the ground of some trifling breach of the Act.
30 What is done in the case of articles of association? There are in articles of association pro- [start page 590]
31 visions for meetings to be held, for the holding of meetings in a certain manner, and for a number of
32 directors, and so forth. But there is always a clause for any accidental omissions; to comply with the articles
33 is not to invalidate the resolutions of the meeting. I would suggest this should be done here. All we want to
34 provide against is accident, mere accidental omissions. I would suggest the following:
35 Any accidental failure to comply with the foregoing provisions of this section shall not invalidate any
36 proposed law to which the Federal Parliament has assented.
37 Mr. REID: That would make it worse.
38 Mr. HIGGINS: But I would provide that the failure shall be treated as accidental, in this way. I would go
39 on to add:
40 The failure shall be treated as accidental if it has not been brought to the attention of the President of the
41 Senate or of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
42 Mr. BARTON: This procedure is to be brought before the court by way of affidavit, then.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
46 Convention)
47 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
48 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
52 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
53 I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having
54 important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
55 END QUOTE
56
57 Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
58 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
59 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to
60 understand.
30-9-2024 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 END QUOTE
2 .
3 Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
4 QUOTE
5 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee
6 will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not
7 understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
8 acquainted with the English language.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
12 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
13 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
17 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
18 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
19 described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
20 Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
21 this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
22 rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it,
23 and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
24 understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
25 time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
26 commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
27 appreciated by the people.
28 END QUOTE
29 .
30 Director of Public Prosecutions v Serratore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Criminal
31 Law and Procedure - Statutes - Human Rights - Telecommunications - Law Reform [1995]
32 NSWSC 154 (14 November 1995)
33 QUOTE
34 "It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to
35 interfere with fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be
36 clearly manifested by clear and unmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA
37 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The close link between the fundamental right to be
38 secure against trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by the observations by Lord
39 Scarman in Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself has ... recognised,
40 in the context of telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting
41 individual privacy, although also recognising that the value of privacy can be over-
42 ridden where it conflicts with other significant community values, provided that
43 detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition and protection of privacy in the
44 Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the construction of the
45 statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine
46 doubt as to whether the statutory language authorises the use of intercept information
47 for a particular purpose, that doubt should be resolved in favour of a narrow, rather
48 than a broad construction of the statutory authorisation."
49 END QUOTE
50
51 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
52 QUOTE
53 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
54 are intimately allied to this question.
55 END QUOTE
56
30-9-2024 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 Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
2 Australasian Convention)
3 QUOTE Mr. WISE:
4 They forget that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are
5 expressly remitted to its jurisdiction; and excluded from its jurisdiction are all
6 matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect property, all matters, in a word,
7 affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the interests of
8 mankind.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
12 Australasian Convention),
13 QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
14 Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the
15 administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond
16 the possibility of suspicion;
17 END QUOTE
18
19 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
22 rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
26 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
27
28 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
29 Australasian Convention)
30 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
31 for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
32 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
33 secure to him.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 It must be clear that the Federal Government unconstitutionally providing personal details of
37 Australians to criminal entities like the UN, WHO and W.E.F. violates section 44 of the
38 constitution and the Minister by Section 45 automatically las vacated his/her seat.
39
40 Obviously Ministers and their Officials will engage ongoing in mis/disinformation to pretend
41 they are acting lawfully under claims “defending democracy” as we saw in regard of
42 Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc. However, this B.S. simply must not be accepted to somehow place
43 any Minister above the rule of law of which the constitution is our primary law.
44
45 I am not going to attempt to stop a TRAITORUES Minister and his/her officials to leave the
46 commonwealth of Australia and permanently move to a country of their desire, however while in
47 positions in the Commonwealth of Australia (likewise in State/Territory) they are obligated to
48 conduct matters within the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
49
50 Any Treaty such as ANZAC or whatever only provides certain provisions as long as they are
51 within the scope of the legal provisions embedded in the constitution and not despite of that.
52

30-9-2024 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 When it comes to “peace, order, and good government” we cannot have that the Commonwealth
2 dictates Australians have to use EV’s (Electric Vehicles) because this would fall outside the
3 legislative powers of the Commonwealth.
4 It appears to me that a lot of Ministers will claim that their electors indicated certain thing to
5 them and that is why they are acting as such or pursue something. That alone shows that this
6 Minister is ignorant to his constitutional position!
7 ‘
8 A person can be a candidate in a federal election and if successful become a Member of
9 Parliament providing having a conduct/status acceptable for constitutional purposes. If a
10 successful candidate is a bankrupt, had foreign nationality, etc, then clearly this person cannot
11 become a Member of Parliament.
12 If however there are no issues against the person then the successful candidate may accept taking
13 up the seat, generally upon the return of the writs.
14 This person then can only maximum serve for 3-year period in the House of Representatives and
15 that 3-year period goes from the first date of the return of the writs to the date of the return of the
16 writs following. It is not that a Member of Parliament can sit for a full 3 years and then an
17 additional time until the writs are returned.
18
19 Lawyers often are interpreting legal documents including the constitution by their twisted
20 perceptions and you therefore often find that in litigation before a court there are two set of
21 lawyers claiming opposite application of what the legislation purports to be, and that in itself
22 underlines that the legal provisions are drastically failing as it must be able to be understood by
23 an ”unlettered” person even without needing a law to interprete the meaning of legal provisions.
24
25 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
27 The practice in England has been that when the House of Commons is dissolved, the
28 Gazette which contains the proclamation, or one issued concurrently, also contains a
29 proclamation summoning a parliament to meet on a given day, and all the writs are
30 appointed to be returned on that day.
31 END QUOTE
32 .
33 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
35 According to the English practice there is always a parliament either summoned or
36 prorogued. Coincident with the dissolution of the old parliament is the proclamation
37 calling the new parliament
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
41 QUOTE
42 Sir JOHN BRAY: I am very glad to hear that the committee considered the point,
43 although I think they arrived at a very unwise decision. The hon. gentleman who last spoke
44 is mistaken in what I take to be the drift of all parliaments. No parliament lives out the
45 full term of its existence. It is always dissolved before it actually expires, and so it would
46 be in this [start page 645] case. The practice almost invariably is for the
47 house to be dissolved, and a new house elected, before the
48 expiration of the three years, the object being that there shall
49 always be a parliament in existence. The intention is not that the members
50 shall be elected for three years, but that they shall absolutely serve for three years, and the
51 three years ought for the sake of convenience to date from the first meeting of parliament.
52 END QUOTE
30-9-2024 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
2 Again:
3
4 and a new house elected, before the expiration of the three years
5
6 As such, the election and return of the writs must be held before the end of the 3-year period.
7
8 Let us consider that a war breaks out after the governor-General dissolved the House of
9 Representatives and progued the parliament. And the election is planned to be held after the 3-
10 year period of the last return of the writs. The Governor-General now is left without a ability to
11 issue an amended proclamation to revise his proclamation to enable a Parliament to sit and
12 debate the war issue. What however would happen is that the Governor-General having issued a
13 proclamation and the writs to be returned before the end of the 3-year period then technically
14 there always is a Parliament, siting or called. As such enemy forces cannot plan an attack while
15 there is no Parliament existing.
16
17 I have in the past made clear that in my view we have an incompetent Australian electoral
18 commission as it simply doesn’t seem to understand/comprehend what is constitutionally
19 applicable.
20
21 For example, we have all this electioneering advertising of voting for a particular party to have it
22 gaining government. Constitutionally there is no system of a political party gaining government.
23 Those who are elected to the Parliament may or may not have an association to a political party
24 but they are all equal by the constitution. For the Governor-General it is not his/her concern as to
25 if a person is a member of a particular political party but rather if the person is a competent
26 “constitutional advisor”.
27
28 HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
29 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
30 The resolutions conclude:
31 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time
32 to time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term
33 of office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
34 expressed by the support of the majority.
35 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
36 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
37 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
38 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
39 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
40 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
41 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
42 view.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
46 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
47 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
48 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this
49 case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform
50 to it.
51 END QUOTE
52 .

30-9-2024 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 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
4 END QUOTE
5 .
6 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
9 we will have to wipe it out."
10 END QUOTE
11
12 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
14 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses
15 of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if
16 the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next,
17 and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but
18 Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-day
19 and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the Constitution.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Reality is that to my understanding most if not all Ministers are so to say BRAIN DEAD as they
23 seem to have no clue what is constitutionally applicable.
24 For example, getting some singer becoming a Minister and end up having people being killed
25 because the Minister really hasn’t got a clue what is constitutionally permissible and so just do
26 whatever.
27
28 Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and other
29 services:
30
31
32 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
33 Australasian Convention)
34 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
35 It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which
36 carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of
37 the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams.
38 END QUOTE
39
40
41 (Writers note: Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo
42 opportunities for a Minister!)
43
44 And:
45 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
46 Australasian Convention)
47 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
48 If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the Federal Government
49 all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters, clerks, and other officers, who do not do
50 national, but the purest local business; and you at once raise up a large army of civil servants, the
51 influence of which we want to dissociate from our national life
52 END QUOTE
53
54 (Writers note: Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
55 clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company)
56
30-9-2024 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 More than likely the relevant Minister may not have a clue how for example Australia Post
2 operates. Let alone that any parcel delivery business must be operating within the confines of
3 Australia Post, etc.
4
5 What we have is politicians seeking to have candidates for elections who regardless how
6 incompetent they might be, they may just be elected for a seat and give them more opportunity to
7 dictate the parliament.
8
9 Then if such person is chosen by the Governor-General to be a Minister then this further
10 exacerbate the problems.
11
12 We saw with a Scott Morrison scam about purportedly having all kinds of commissions to other
13 Department, reality is their neither the Governor-General or the Government understood what is
14 appropriate.
15
16 It was claimed that the government should have published in the Gazette the about 5 additional
17 commissions whereas other claim it should have been the Governor-General.
18
19 Reality is that the Governor-General commissioning of a person to be a Minister is not valid
20 unless and until the Governor-General publish this commission in the Gazette. Meaning, that
21 Scott Morrison never on that basis could have been commissioned to the numerous portfolios he
22 claimed to be commissioned.
23 There is another snag to it all!
24 The Governor-General is limited to only commission one person to be the “responsible
25 Minister”, and as such there can be no second person commissioned as Minister for the same
26 portfolio. As such unless the Governor-General withdrew the commission of the already
27 commissioned Minister the purported commissions of Scott Morrison to various portfolios never
28 were lawful! The same with the nonsense of having a “Minister assisting the Minister”. You can
29 not have 2 person’s as Ministers!
30
31 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
32 Australasian Convention)
33 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
34 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
35 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
36 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
37 charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the
38 whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Parliament has absolutely no constitutional legislative powers to deny or limit the rights of
42 Australians to publish articles unless such publication is in violation of criminal law. It is
43 essential that the media instead of being the whores of politicians are acting as envisaged by the
44 Framers of the Constitution to honest and factual reporting!
45
46 My rights to expose the “covid scam” never could have been interfered with because it is my
47 “political rights” and “religious right” to expose the corruptive, etc, conduct of politicians!
48
49 It should be understood that while a Member of parliament can claim to represent his/her
50 electorate onvce elevated to being a Minister tyhen as a Minister he doesn’t represent his
51 electorate but all Australians. Hence, it is irrelevant what his electorate may desire. As such,
30-9-2024 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 while a Minister as a Member of Parliament may rightly or wrongly present in the Parliament his
2 views based on what his electorate may desire but then when acting as a Minister, he then has to
3 throw off his electorate views as now he must act non-politically to represent the interest of all
4 Australians.
5 And, when there are issues that may be dividing his views being as a Minister but also as a
6 Member of Parliament then well his Ministerial obligation should be priority.
7 As such for a Minister claiming that he listen to his electorate is utter and sheer nonsense, as he
8 was commissioned for a port folio for ALL Australians!
9
10 There is however no problem for the Minister having divided views/position then to seek a
11 proper resolution by requesting submissions.
12
13 The problem however is that at least over the decades I discovered that those dealing with
14 submissions are bias and even exclude submissions merely because they are averse to their own
15 intentions. Yet, later claim they consider all submissions. By this they are making
16 mis/disinformation statements to seek to justify their final decision. Indeed, in the State of
17 Victoria we as residents in a certain area were invited to make submissions to a certain
18 commission, only afterwards I was informed that the final decision was made before there was
19 any request for submissions made. As such it was a bogus, and pretended to be for “peace, order
20 and good government”!
21
22 There are numerous constitutional issues involving some tens of billions of dollars but we seem
23 to have Albanese to travel the world to place himself on some platform rather than deal with the
24 issues he should be dealing with as internal matters.
25
26 A (prime) Minister is not head of Government as the constitution provides that the Governor-
27 General is. A (prime) Minister has no constitutional authority over other Ministers portfolio’s
28 and as such has no business to for example travel abroad to interfere with the Minister for
29 Foreign Affairs matters, etc.
30 There is no such thing, constitutionally this is, of a Labor Government or a Coalition
31 Government but a Government must be for ALL Australians.
32 Political ideologies must give way for the best interest of ALL Australians!
33 It is the mis/disinformation practiced by politicians that are the real issues at hand. Hence,
34 unconstitutional interferences with an Australians “political liberty” and/or “religious liberty” is
35 the real issue that needs to be considered
36
37 Let the rule of law prevail!
38
39 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
40
41 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
42 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

43 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

44 (Our name is our motto!)

30-9-2024 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