Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Constitutional 5 Recognition of Local Government
Department of House of Representatives PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT. 2600 Australia. 10

10-2-2013

jsclg@aph.gov.au
THE DETAILS IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO CONFIDENTIALITY!

15

Re; Presentment to the House of Representatives joint select Committee on the Constitutional recognition of Local Government SUPPLEMENT 01 TO 4-2-2013 SUBMISSION To the Committee Secretary,

regretfully, I am now aware that the committee had the courtesy to acknowledge my 1427 page, 4 February 2013, submission! Surely, there ought to be a system in 20 place that ensures that those who take their time to provide a submission are kept informed as to it having been received, etc.
.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware how the Framers of the Constitution held that their debates had to be transparent and accessible to the media, and so the public was kept well 25 informed of what they were doing, other then their special committee debtes that they held was to be in private.
.

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).30 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE

Clearly this committee is not one that is to remain operating in confidentiality because its public hearing itself underlines it must be open and transparent. Regretfully, the committee doesn’t seem to be aware that olther than Sydney there are electors living elsewhere who also ought to be given an opportunity to express their views (and frustration). Indeed, in a time where we are against discrimination this committee clearly is discriminating against most people (citizens) around Australia. For example, not everyone has the ability to put in writing their objections, and 40 so why is there no facility for citizens to have their submissions in audio recording and then the commission’s typist can type the transcript of this? Surely, when we are referring to amend the constitution, or the consideration thereof, then everything should be done to ensure that every citizen who desires to contribute is given a reasonable opportunity to do so, even those who lack the skills of writing. Also, all submissions shouild be published in a matter of days, this so that 45 citizens still have an opportunity to respond or clarify as to any submission they consider is not presenting details appropriately.
35
.

Those on the committee are politicians, who may have a self interest not to disclose the content of certain submissions at this time because it may serve them and their purpose in the manner it
Re: 130210-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Submission Re Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Suppl-01 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

5

Page 2 was presented. Whereas I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and not swayed as to any political colour but only have an interest that whatever amendment, if any, was to be proposed to the People, it has to be very carefully worded to avoid creating some avenue for any future government to abuse and misuse the amendment for purposes never intended.
.

10

15

20

25

With the 1967 con-job referendum regarding s51(xxvi) it was, as I understood it, only about amending s51(xxvi) as to the application regarding Aboriginals, not as to any other race(s), ported affect was different. Let me explain: A constitutional provision can but have only one meaning regardless to whom it applies. S51(vvi) was specifically created to discriminate against a particular race. It doesn’t matter that personally I ooppose racial discrimination because what is relevant is that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am bound to express the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, not my own personal opinions, as to the true meaning and application of the constitution. When I refer to the Framers of the Constitution this does not just refer to those long dead and burfried wgho debates matters in 1800’s but it includes every elector who voted in referendums since the creation of the Commonwealth of Australias. We are all, when voting in a referendum a “Framer of the Constitution” even if we veto an amendment of the constitution, because we then decide that we do not want to amend the constitution and as we only have “constitutional Parliaments” no Parliament can overrule our veto. In 1967 the amendment of s51(xxvi) was clearly to include Aboriginals as a race. I am not aware that the amendment was to amend the meaning of s51(xxvi) in regard of any olther race, and therefore we must hold that no such amendment was intended. S51(xxvi) was intended to specifically discriminate against a race and not to be used against the general community. It was for this that in the 1950’s the then Federal governemtn abandoned any intention to amend s51(xxvi) when it was advised that there was too much bagage with s51(xxvi) and it would be better to create a special section about Aboriginals. Regretfully, since then in 1967 it was ignored and we had therefore an amendment that never was understood since, not even by the judges of the High Court of Australia, how this was restricted in application. As shown below:
One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community END QUOTE

30 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

Many other likewise statements were made during the debates, and as such it was clear that s51(xxvi) could not be used against the “general community”. But we now find that s51(xxvi) is used often to enact laws in favour of Aboriginals and Torress Strait Islanders against the rights of the “general community”. This even so Torress Strait Islanders are actually not Aboriginals and the Aboririginal & Torress Strait Islanders Act is therefore in violation of constitutional 40 limigtations as s51(xxvi) permits a specifica legislation only to be against one particular race and not more than one race! I do not intend to go into all kinds of specifics but safe to say that the Framers of the Constitution held that Aboriginals should have equality amongst ordinary Australians and this was clearly robbed from them by the 1967 con-job referendum about s51(xxvi). We cannot hold that for example s51(xxvi) allows for Afghanis to have special legal 45 aid funding because they are a race within the meaning of s51(xxvi). Yet, we have this for Aboriginals. Clearly, we now have contradictive usage of s51(xxvi) that is used for Aboriginals but not the same for other races. This is what you get when people promoting themselves as “constitutional lawyers” are giving advice about something they haven’t got a clue what they really are talking about then when will a government bother to seek my assistance if I am not 50 holding a law degree? As such, rather then exploring the true meaning and application of the constitution and what can in that context be done to amend it to the intentions of the electors (Frawmers of the Constitution) as promoted during a referendum, the government rather relies on misleading/deceptive advice of so called “constitutional lawyers”.
35
Re: 130210-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Submission Re Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Suppl-01 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

To change the meaning of s96, or any other part of the constitution, will have its flow on effect upon other constitutional meanings and it is for this essential that any proposal to amend the constitution looks in greater details as to the benefits or the evils hidden in the details of the amendment proposed, if any. It should be understood that s96 was only intended to be an 10 emergency relief funding provision and not at all as now appears to be a general slush funds by the Commonwealth to dictate to the States what it can or cannot do. It is my view and so submission that this committee will hold hearings in every capital city of every State/Territory!
15

5

Page 3 Perhaps the committee, if making any recommendation may present to me it’s draft and then request me to comment upon it so that before it submits its final draft it will have an impartial option. the committee then can make an informed decision as to what might be constitutionally permissible and appropriate.
.

Amending the constitution or even proposing to do so is not something that should be taken lightly and must enable all citizens to become involved, including those who may lack the skill of writing, as to express their views, and what they intended to submit.
20

Also, to ensure transparency in what the committee is doing, I do urge it to ensure to acknowledge receiving submissions, and to without undue delay publish each and every submission! The above is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant details/issues.

25

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
(

Our name is our motto!)

Re: 130210-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Submission Re Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Suppl-01 INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) © 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful