• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
1
8-11-2011 Page
1
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com  FREE DOWNLOADS of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
 Ambassador Sato
8-11-2011
Japan Embassy , Australia112 Empire Circuit 26005Yarralumla Canberra Australia
Phone:
+61-2-6273-3244
Fax:
+61-2-6273-1848
 Email:
cultural@japan.org.au
Website URL:
http://www.japan.org.au/10
Cc;
Julia Gillard PM
C/oR.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au 
Solomon Star Limited
(founded 1982)15Location: New Chinatown, HoniaraPhone: (+677) 22062 Email: solstar@solomon.com.Fax: (+677) 25290 Postal Address: PO Box 255, Honiara, Solomon IslandsManaging Director: John Lamani
solstar@solomon.com.sb 
20Ref:
Australian International standing – whaling, etc
.Sir/Madam,I was alerted to a website athttp://www.solomonstarnews.com/viewpoint/private-view/9538-australia-and-new-zealand-governments-illegitimateand it appears to me that the25author 
Kelvyn Alp
misconstrued considerably what is applicable.I will now seek to explain some matters.As a self educated
COSTITUTIOALIST
I have the benefit to be open minded about what isconstitutionally applicable.One of the significant statements that was made by the Framers of the Constitution was:30
. 
Hansard
2-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE
Mr. SYMO
( South Australia ).-In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
35
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"
under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Ireland
, and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that theapplication of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is notintended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to createunder that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for 
40
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
That is, for admission into this political Union,which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Unionby the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
 END QUOTE
 .45Most people around the world deal with Australians that they have a nationality of “Australiancitizenship” but the truth is no such nationality exist. In fact the Framers of the Constitutionrefused to give the Commonwealth of Australia any legislative powers to declare/define
 
 
2
8-11-2011 Page
2
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com  FREE DOWNLOADS of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
citizenship. Constitutionally Australians are and remain with their nationality to be “Subjects of the British Crown”.
.
While the 1988 Royal Commission “
assumed
” that the Commonwealth could legislate to have“Australian citizenship” as a nationality, the constitution doesn’t provide for a Royal5Commission to twist or infringe upon the true meaning and application of the constitution.
.
It must be clear that the terminology used by the
Framers of the
 
Constitution
 
are; “
Britishsubject
”, “
to make persons subjects of the British Empire.
”, “
with the consent of theImperial authority
”, “
What is meant is adual citizenshipin Mr. Trenwith and myself.That
10
is to say,I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is thedual citizenship.
”, “
we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
”
.
Hansard
2-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE 
15
Mr. SYMO
.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under theoperation of the law, so as to be a
citizen
of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen
of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of astate to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth,
except with regard to legislation as to aliens.
Dual
citizenship
exists, but it is not dual
citizenship
of persons, it is dual
citizenship
in each person.
There may
20
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is acitizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dualcitizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizenof the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
25
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do notexpect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, indealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the
citizenship
of thisCommonwealth in any way or exclude anybody[start page 1764]from it, and let us do that with precision andclearness.
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
30
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, theright of depriving me of citizenship.
I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such athing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a
citizen
of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGIS
.-Why not?
35
Mr. SYMO
.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament.
We must rest thisConstitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be acitizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, orrestrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject todisabilities, as aliens, and so on.
 
40
END QUOTE
 The colonies agreed to enter in a federation called the Commonwealth of Australia but refused to be mere provinces and so held they must be of Statehood, and this was so provided for withins106 (subject to this constitution) of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
 45(UK). Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia is a
POLITICAL UIO
as now exist withthe European Union which acts on behalf of its member states, of which the United Kingdom isone of them.
Some set out:
50This following clearly does provide for the application of the
The European Convention forthe protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the ECHR”)!
 Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English ature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908(Admin) (24th April, 2002)
55
QUOTE53. In support of his submission that, for Article 6(1) to be engaged, it was necessary for the relevant proceedings to be “directly decisive” of the civil rights in question, Mr Sales referred to and relied upon
 
 
3
8-11-2011 Page
3
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com  FREE DOWNLOADS of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati what he described as the “consistent” body of European jurisprudence on this point over the last thirty years(see paragraph 41 of Mr Sales’ written skeleton argument) in cases such as
Ringeisen -v- Austria (o. 1)
(1971) 1 EHRR 455 at paragraph. 94,
Albert & Le Compte -v- Belgium
(1983) 18 EHRR 533 at paragraph 28,
Benthem -v- etherlands
(1986) 8 EHRR 1,
Boden -v- Sweden
(1987) 10 EHRR 367 at paragraph 30,
H -v- France
(1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraphs 46-47 and
Barmer-Schafroth -v-
5
Switzerland
(1997) 25 EHRR 598 at paragraph 32. In the course of his submissions, Mr Sales referred tothe following passage in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) in the caseof 
Enzi -v- Austria
(Application no. 29268/95) as a convenient and succinct statement of the relevant principles of law upon which he relied:“The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute over “rights and
10
obligations” which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law and, if so, whether this “right” was of a “civil” character within themeaning of Article 6(1) (see the Oerlemans -v- the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991 … paragraphs 45-49). Article 6(1) only applies if the right is civil incharacter (see the Benthem -v- the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985 …
15
 paragraph 32). The “dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to theexistence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuousconnections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6(1) into play(see the Allan Jacobson -v- Sweden judgment of 25 October 1989 … paragraphs 66-67,
20
and the Masson and Van Zon -v- the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995 … at paragraph 44).”END QUOTE
 
.
While the issue of whaling is not a particular Human Rights issue nevertheless what it shows is25that the United Kingdom is governed by the European Union provisions because as the courtheld in this case that as a signature to the European Union constitution then all European Uniondecisions would override British law other then constitutional law.
.
Hansard
17-4-1897
Constitution Convention Debates
 
30
QUOTE
 Mr. SYMO:There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of thecommon law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
 END QUOTE
 
.
35What this means is that European Union legal provisions can be applied to the Commonwealth of Australia complimentary to its constitution (commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)) but it cannot overrule any constitutional provisions.The Commonwealth of Australia can enter in any treaty within its “
external affairs
” legislative powers but then also the following should be considered:40.
Hansard
 
9-9-1897 
 
Constitution Convention Debates
(
Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention
)QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID
:I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
45
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 theempire.
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
50
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
As such, unless the Commonwealth has passed legislation to incorporate a treaty as law anyone55can disobey a treaty.It has been argued such as by the High Court of Australia in the
Tasmania Dam
case that theCommonwealth of Australia within its external affairs powers can attract jurisdiction but that isnot the case at all.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...