• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
1
Page 19-12-2011
CEO & PRICIPAL REGISTRAR –Re Court clarification- etc ISPECTOR-RIKATI
®
about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVD
 
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data
DVD 
ISB 978-0-9803712-6-0
 
PLEASE OTE
: You may order books in the
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com
 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
Andrew Phelan
Chief Executive & Principal Registrar HCA
9-12-2011
C/ocrogers@hcourt.gov.au 
5
Cc; Carolyn Rogers
SEIOR REGISTRAR 
 
crogers@hcourt.gov.au 
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
 
,
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®Email:mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com 
.
10
Ref: CEO &
PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR – Re Court clarification
-
etc
Sir/Madam,as a
COSTITUTIOALIST
I take it extremely important to have the High Courtof Australia operating as a court within the provisions of Chapter III of the constitution(
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK)) and as such seek clarification to15matters.
 I must stress from onset that I am not seeking any kind of legal advice just clarification of the Courts position.
.
As I pointed out in my 17 October 2011 correspondence20
QUOTE
As a self-educated
COSTITUTIOALIST
I gained the view from the constitution(
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) that it has embedded in it a legal principle of seperation of powers being1. The Legislators252. The Executives3. The judiciary4. Inter-State Commission
END QUOITE
.
30
Hansard
27-1-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURER 
.-Will you briefly restate the point?
Mr. DEAKI
.-
My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arriveat a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working
35
of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the wholeof the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament willhave no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide thenecessary revenue for carrying out that law.
 
Another difficulty of the sub-section is the questionwhether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes
40
place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred thequestion? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, andshould be settled. I should say that, havingappealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
 QUOTE
45
.
Hansard
22-9-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE
 
 
2
Page 29-12-2011
CEO & PRICIPAL REGISTRAR –Re Court clarification- etc ISPECTOR-RIKATI
®
about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVD
 
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data
DVD 
ISB 978-0-9803712-6-0
 
PLEASE OTE
: You may order books in the
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com
 The Hon. R.E. O'COOR (ew South Wales)[3.18]:The moment the commonwealth exercises thepower, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
 END QUOTE
.
Hansard
30-3-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
5
QUOTE
Mr. REID:
 
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those pointsenumerated in clause 52,that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be twolaws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbalcriticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
10
complication of the kind.
 END QUOTE
.
Hansard
30-3-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
15
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load thecommonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary.
Although it is quite true that thispower is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislateon a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth toexercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the statesmust retirefrom
20
that field of legislation.
 END QUOTE
.
Hansard
2-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE
25
Mr. OCOOR 
.-
Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power
, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised.END QUOTE
 
.
What we have for example is that the NSW parliament in 1956 legislated as to State land Taxes30and this followed by other States even so on 11 November 1910 the Commonwealth Land TaxOffice ousted any State legislation for this. Yet, the former NSW Government as late as in 2011claims that its legislative powers were returned to it, this even so no constitutional provision existto allow a “uniform” federal legislative powers to revert back to a State non uniform legislative power!35 Not only must ordinary laws and the execution be “uniform” unless the Inter-State Commissionas a panel of experts decide otherwise, but also any reference of powers once given to theCommonwealth cannot be withdrawn as once the Commonwealth enacted upon reference of  powers it is and remains for ever a Commonwealth legislative powers. It means that for exampleany alleged powers for a Governor of a State to terminate reference of legislative powers is a40utter and sheer nonsense because it is beyond termination (consider the
Commonwealth Powers(Children) Act 1986 
for this also. But neither can states unilaterally refer legislative powers tothe Commonwealth without a State referendum the sovereign colonies became constitutionalStates and the States can therefore not interfere either with the appointment of the Governor asneither can the Commonwealth do with the appointment of the Governor-General even so this45 purportedly was done such as with the Governor of NSW as an example. For purpose of thiscorrespondence I will not venture further into the ills of any appointment of aGovernor/Governor-General but safe to State that no constitutional Parliament can interfere withor override what is constitutionally required.
.
50Actually there is a gross misconception as to the meaning of “local government” whichconstitutionally means to be “State government” and “central government” means the Federalgovernment and municipal/shire councils are to be deemed corporations representing ratepayers.As such the purported 1902 amendment of the NSW constitution to provide for municipal/shirecouncils to be “local government” was unconstitutional as it seeks to interfere with the55constitution of the federation and no State constitution could be amended unless approved by the
 
 
3
Page 39-12-2011
CEO & PRICIPAL REGISTRAR –Re Court clarification- etc ISPECTOR-RIKATI
®
about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVD
 
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data
DVD 
ISB 978-0-9803712-6-0
 
PLEASE OTE
: You may order books in the
ISPECTOR-RIKATI® series
by making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mailINSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.comSee alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com
 
State electors (that includes any reference of legislative powers to the Commonwealth as iteffectively results to an alternation/amendment of the State constitutional powers) and so not asingle State constitution that purportedly amended but without approval of the respective Stateelectors by State referendum is then constitutionally valid. Because the States are constitutionalentities and not sovereign entities. It also means that while the States can legislate as to its5internal jurisdiction such as State courts it cannot interfere with the State Courts as to how itconducts its proceedings or remove from the State Court its judicial powers because to do sowould interfere with the separation of powers. As such for example the Victorian state Attorney-General having somehow assigned to a private company Tenix Solutions IMES Pty Ltd to use itsregistered trademark CIVIC COMPLIANCE VICTORIA to operate the Magistrates Court of 10Victoria
computer facilities
to issue court orders and warrants is unconstitutional as anAttorney-General has no powers to interfere with the independence of the State Courts so as tomanipulate the courts to cause a private company to issue unconstitutional orders/warrants.
HASARD
17-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
 
15
QUOTE
Mr. BARTO
.- 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 underit; 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
20
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 slowdegrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that theguarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained;
and so, in the highest sense, thecourt you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
25
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 sphereof the Commonwealth.END QUOTE
.
30
HASARD
10-03-1891
Constitution Convention Debates
 QUOTE
Dr. COCKBUR:
 
All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentarysovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throwparliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
35
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the powerof amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentarysovereignty.o parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have thepower of changing its constitution at its own will.
 
Again, instead of parliament being supreme, theparliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
40
one body. More than all that, there is this difference:
 
When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensedwith, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciarywhich towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreterof the constitution. 
END QUOTE
45
.
Hansard
15-9-1897 
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKI:
I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I amwrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are
50
subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is,as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be leftfor all time to be determined in a purely states house,
or by a state referendum
, when those questions are notstate questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines,
and by a nationalreferendum
.
55
END QUOTE
.
of 00

Leave a Comment

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