Mr Tony Abbott

5

Prime Minister

20-9-2013

Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au Cc: Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref: 130919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!

10

Tony,

as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I seek to clarify some matters as there seems to be a considerable misconception by many, including so called “monarchist” and “republican”, as well as the judiciary in general (including the High Court of Australia) as to the true meaning and 15 application of the constitution, as some matters I will set out in a limited format below.
.

As I understand it you are a “monarchist” and Malcolm Turnbull is a “republican”, but both have law degrees.
.

20

I am just an ordinary bloke who didn’t have English as his native language, nor had any formal education in the English language, and so uses my self proclaimed “crummy English”. I am neither a Rhodes scholar, but seems to understand and comprehend constitutional limitations better then those who are.

25 KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221 Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ. QUOTE Barwick C.J.(1) 10. There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction which are beyond controversy. The words of the Constitution are to be read in that natural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by the Imperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of any Australian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided by s. 35 128 of the Constitution. The connotation of words employed in the Constitution does not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstances extend the denotation or reach of those words. These propositions are fully documented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task of finally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation 40 of the language of the Constitution. (at p229) END QUOTE 30 Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 45 The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every clause, or nearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct negative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion as they may think fit if I ruled this out of order. p1 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

END QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that 10 too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE 5
.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 15 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a 20 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to 25 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. END QUOTE 30 . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE 40

35

Let me quote of my 16 September 2013 correspondence to you; QUOTE 16--9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Tony, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, my primary concern is what the true meaning and application of the constitution is about. For example the Framers of the Constitution stated:
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the ambit of those specified. The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their p2 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

50

55

5

legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had better not be left out of the bill altogether. The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting Committee.

Amendment negatived. END QUOTE 10 END QUOTE 16--9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942 QUOTE Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham, 15 "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio. 20 END QUOTE Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) QUOTE 25 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould. END QUOTE 30 . DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001) QUOTE 24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of 35 proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. Those provisions are well known. QUOTE . 40 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the 45 principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." END QUOTE And QUOTE 50 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in 55 reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no 60 rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . p3 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 5 END QUOTE Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256) QUOTE 10 BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~ END QUOTE Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257: 30 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute … is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." . . . “The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudged unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ...”.

15

20

25

35

40

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.45 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. 50 END QUOTE

Take for example the issue of “compulsory voting”I submitted to the court that it was “unconstitutional” in which I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth (AEC - Australian Electoral Commission), on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of Victoria. Despite this it still 55 issued fines against me for failing to vote, and so against hundreds of thousands of others, even so clearly is is a crime to undermine the benefits of a court judgment.
p4 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Why then is the Commonwealth not repealing compulsory voting? It is contrary to the “legal principles’ embedded in the constitution and also in conflict with s106 of the constitution. (As I did set out extensively in my submissions to the court and the Commonwealth even so having highly paid lawyers attending didn’t challenged anything I submitted to the court, and as such 5 must be deemed to have accepted that my submissions were correct in law. And they were also subject to a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and none of the AttorneyGenerals sought to challenge my submissions either.)
.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
10 A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

“CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC”
15

In part 3 of the submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT I also stated:
QUOTE 19 July 29006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=398&invol=333 U.S. Supreme Court

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970) 398 U.S. 333 WELSH v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 76. Argued January 20, 1970 Decided June 15, 1970 Petitioner was convicted of refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces despite his claim for conscientious objector status under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. That provision exempts from military service persons who by reason of "religious training and belief" are conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that term being defined in the Act as "belief in a relation to a supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation" but not including "essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal code." In his exemption application petitioner stated that he could not affirm or deny belief in a "Supreme Being" and struck the words "my religious training and" from the form. He affirmed that he held deep conscientious scruples against participating in wars where people were killed. The Court of Appeals, while noting that petitioner's "beliefs are held with the strength of more traditional religious convictions," concluded that those beliefs were not sufficiently "religious" to meet the terms of 6 (j), and affirmed the conviction. Petitioner contends that the Act violates the First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion and that his conviction should be set aside on the basis of United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 , which held that the test of religious belief under 6 (j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 335-367. 404 F.2d 1078, reversed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that: This case is controlled by United States v. Seeger, supra, to which it is factually similar. Under Seeger, 6 (j) is not limited to those whose opposition to war is prompted by orthodox or parochial religious beliefs. A registrant's conscientious objection to all war is "religious" within the meaning of 6 (j) if this [398 U.S. 333, 334] opposition stems from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. In view of the broad scope of the word "religious," a registrant's characterization of his beliefs as "nonreligious" is not a reliable guide to those administering the exemption. Pp. 335-344. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concluded that: 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354. 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356. p5 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.

10 Again

15 http://members.macconnect.com/users/k/knelson/co/co.html "By Reason of Religious Training and Belief..." A History of Conscientious Objection and Religion during the Vietnam War 20 By Karl D. Nelson END QUOTE 19 July2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

It should be understood this equally applies to non-religious objections to voting!
25

Therefore, any official seeking to enforce or penalise a person for not voting, despite of his/her objection I view commits a criminal offence and so the “responsible Minister” who permits this kind of criminal offence to be perpetrated against electors.
CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECTION 43. QUOTE

30

Attempting to pervert justice (1) Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this Act, to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

35 (2) For the purposes of an offence against subsection (1), absolute liability applies to the physical element of circumstance of the offence that the judicial power is of the Commonwealth. 40 (3) For the person to be guilty of an offence against subsection (1), the person's conduct must be more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact. (4) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if doing the thing attempted is impossible. 45 END QUOTE
.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond 50 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE 55

I was asked (During the recent 2013 federal election) if the election was valid, in view that the Commonwealth of Australia is a foreign registered company, and the courts are likewise corporated courts beyond the provisions of the constitution. I held that as long as the election was held within the confines of the constitution, and any legislation enacted within the legislative
p6 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

powers. This even so the candidates elected may subsequently betray their constituents, and then engage themselves in a foreign registered corporation called the Commonwealth of Australia. Since then I discovered, and wrote to you previously, the writs were incorrect as they didn’t provide for the correct number of days as required by law, and this problem was precisely what 5 was extensively and successfully litigated by me regarding the 20012 federal election. Therefore the writs being invalid there was and could be no valid election held. I have not as yet checked out other matters regarding the validity or the invalidity of the election, but safe to say I suspect there likely will be a repeat of the numerous election problems that I exposed in regard of the 2001 federal election.
10

Therefore, no member was or could have been validly elected to the House of Representatives and neither to the Senate

But, as s64 of the constitution allow the Governor-General to commission any person to form a government and to appoint subsequently any person, even not holding a seat in the Parliament, 15 for being a advisor (minister of the Crown) to the Governor-General then the election itself cannot dictate the validity of the appointment for up to 3 months. However, we must consider also the following:
HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 20 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by the Government of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown. END QUOTE

25

What basically is applicable is, that a person not when elected but when actually taking up the seat in the Parliament at the return of the writs, then and only from then on can the person be paid an ‘allowance’, not being a ‘salary’. On Wednesday 128 September 2013 I happen to read an article about a Victorian Member of Parliament Geoff Shaw, who was instead of being at his local (Frankston) political office was actually working at his accountancy office. it seems it was held he was ripping of the public 35 doing so. The truth is he did precisely what the Framers of the Constitution debated to be applicable. That those who are elected continue to work in their normal daily job and receive an “allowance” (not being a “salary”) towards the travel expenses and loss of income for attending to the Parliament. essentially people have been by masses brainwashed that a person who actually acts appropriately in that regard may be deemed to be a thief.
30 40

It is beyond me why on earth you would have waited until Wednesday 18 September 2013 to seek to have a Ministry sworn in, as constitutionally you all were not entitled to receive any remuneration since the election was proclaimed by the Governor-General, that is by publishing it in the Gazette (as there is no legal validity as to announcing it on the steps of Parliament!) and 45 as such you all had to do without an income until the Governor-General validly has sworn in the Ministry. While you were apparently commissioned to form a government on 8 September 2013, this is not a constitutional position which entitles you to be paid from Consolidated Revenue Funds nor it be payable to the Queen, as no constitutional provision exist for this.
.

50

I state validly, because as we are under a British constitution then they only valid oath is to the Monarch of the British Crown. Any other oath would be invalid and not a single person failing to pledge an oath to the British monarch was then validly appointed.
p7 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

An oath in the constitution falls under a “schedule’ and the wording can be varied provided that the purpose of the oath still is a pledge to the British Crown. The constitution provides for Minister to be paid as follows:
5 QUOTE

66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.
END QUOTE

10

The wording “payable to the Queen”, as shown below also, relates to the British Crown, and not to some fictitious Queen of Australia. it is not relevant if the Queen may have agreed to a naming of “Queen of Australia” as the Monarch has absolutely no constitutional powers to alter the true meaning and application of the constitution. Therefore, the meaning is and remains to be as to the British Crown. Indeed, it would be utter and sheer nonsense to pay directly the Governor-General and then he pays the Ministers from Consolidated Revenue Funds. The issue 20 is that Ministers of the Crown are precisely that, they are employed by the British Crown, not the Commonwealth of Australia! Likewise the Governor-General is not employed by the Commonwealth of Australia and neither can be paid by the Commonwealth directly.
15 QUOTE

3 Salary of Governor-General
25

30

There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.
END QUOTE QUOTE

4 Provisions relating to Governor-General
35

40

The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of the Commonwealth; but no such person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the Commonwealth in respect of any other office during his administration of the Government of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Therefore, upon termination of services by any Minister or Governor-General then constitutionally no further payments are due payable to the Queen. And neither can the Queen 45 override the constitution to provide somehow a continued payment for retired Ministers/Governor-General or other assistant Ministers, etc, which were and never could have been employed by the Commonwealth. it also means that former Members of Parliament are not entitled to any further payments. Neither can it be claimed that they are entitled to some kind of payment for not being re-elected when they stood as a candidate, because they simply are not 50 Members of Parliament as such, at least not regarding the House of Representatives. The Queen may redeploy a Governor-General to be a Governor-General or Prime Minister, etc, elsewhere in any part of the British Commonwealth, and it would be utter nonsense that such a Governor-General could obtain pensions whenever leaving an appointment. .
p8 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE: The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the 10 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the 15 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of 20 such authority. END QUOTE Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 25 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution. END QUOTE 30 HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the 35 Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to dealthat the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one 40 legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments. END QUOTE
.

5

Indeed, any Member of Parliament who was to be employed by the Commonwealth, other then the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and a Chair of a committee, would be in breach of s44 of the constitution and by this automatically lose the seat he/she was elected to.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 45 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not 50 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for 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 Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest 55 degree. END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: 60 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE p9 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

It is therefore not relevant what the High Court of Australia may have ruled in Sue v Hill because if it had no constitutional authority to define or otherwise interfere with the British Crown, then that is the end of it. Any person seeking to be an “advisor to the Governor-General” (Minister of the Crown) who 5 represents the British Crown under this British Constitution then must swear an oath to the British Crown. as to be validly appointed. the Governor-General has neither any constitutional powers to administer any oath which doesn’t comply with the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution regarding the British Crown!
.

10 QUOTE

2 Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
END QUOTE

15

The Parliament therefore cannot assign any powers to the Governor-General, nor can interfere with the powers of the Governor-General. While the “Governor-General in council” generally will act upon the advice of his/her Ministers the Governor-General is not bound to do so, as ultimately it is a prerogative power that is exercised. Therefore the nonsense of legislation that somehow the Minister can act for and on behalf of the Governor-General at meetings, if the Governor-General is not available, it precisely this, as the 25 constitution doesn’t permit anyone to act on behalf of the Governor-General who is on a paid salary. Neither can the legislation to declare any proclamation a legislative instrument by registration is valid, because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear the proclamation is not valid until published in the Gazette. Hence, unsigned proclamations purportedly recorded as a legislative instrument are worthless! The Governor-General has no legislative powers what-so30 ever! Neither can the Parliament assign any legislative powers to the Governor-General as only the Queen can provide for prerogative powers. Therefore, any oath administered by the Governor-General representing the British Crown and no other, must be to recognise the British Crown. Failing this, no valid oath can be deemed to have been made and no valid appointment can have been deemed to have been made either.
20 35 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution40 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the 45 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE 50

No Minister is employed by “the People of Australia” but by the British Monarch, and in most countries one would be liable for TREASON to pledge an oath in defiance to what is constitutionally permissible. It is unbecoming to any person to make an oath in defiance of the employer, being the British Monarch. Electors elect representatives, not Ministers of the Crown! 55 Those who think that they are getting away with it anyhow may one day discover that they actually never had the protection of office, because they had failed to make a valid oath, and/or
p10 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

were not even validly elected. Therefore, if you had failed to make an oath to the British Crown, then I view you couldn’t validly be appointed as prime minister, nor anyone else for that having failed to swear a valid oath becoming Minister of the Crown. As such, as set out below, I view Mr Malcolm Turnbull acted correctly to make an oath to the Queen irrespective of his private 5 personal views otherwise. And while he is employed as a Minister of the Crown I would expect he remains from making any adverse comments to the British monarchy.
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 10 Mr. HOLDER: We want something which shall have two parts, which shall be democratic in the fact that it is based on the people's will, and that in it every personal unit of the population shall be recognised and his individuality preserved, and that, on the other hand, shall be a true Federation, in that each State unit shall also have its individuality preserved and its independence assured. I do not think we can afford to dispense with either of these two things. We cannot afford to dispense with the guarantee of the personal individual rights of every citizen of the Commonwealth, nor, on the other hand, can we afford to dispense with the individual or separate rights or interests of each of the separate States-if my hon. friend Mr. O'Connor prefers that term. We cannot neglect to provide for their due recognition. The next principle I shall lay down is this: That in dealing with this federal authority we should confer on it no powers which it cannot exercise more wisely and well and effectively than the States can exercise those powers. I would even go a step further, and lay down as the principle which should govern our conduct: To the States all that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal authority all that is national and inter-State. I wonder whether I can secure the absolute adherence, no matter where it may lead us, of a majority of this Convention to that principle: To the State everything that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal power everything that is national and of inter-State importance. I pass from these two general principles to a discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the question of the appointment of the representative of the British Crown in the person of the Governor-General. I do not take it that the words of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the matter of whether or not we shall elect our own Governor-General, because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire, are chiefly, first the right of veto which the Imperial authorities have over any Acts our local Legislature may pass, and which the Federal Legislature may pass, and next the right of the Imperial Legislature at any time to pass legislation which may affect us, or which may revoke any legislation affecting us. These are the great legal bonds which bind us to the British Empire. But above all this, the greater and wider, and, to my mind, much more important [start page 145] bonds than the legal bonds are those of kinship, of language, and of sympathy that must always bind us to the motherland. The mere appointment by the Crown of the Governor-General is not a real bond. That this is so is recognised to-day in that we have presiding, now and again, in the position of Acting-Governor of one or other of these colonies, gentlemen who so preside by virtue of their position upon the legal bench. In the appointment of the Governor we have only one link, and that link is again and again missing when gentlemen, owing to their legal position, temporarily occupy the office. Mr. SYMON: By vice-regal appointment.

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mr. HOLDER: Yes, of course; the Commission from Her Majesty lies dormant until it is actually called into existence by the absence of the Governor; but we can at this moment, if the necessity arises, appoint a new occupant to the Supreme Court Bench, and that would qualify him to fill the office of Acting-Governor if need required it. Therefore I think it is clear that to that extent it lessens the argument that the main link that 45 binds us to the mother-country is the appointment of the Governor, and shows that it is an argument which has not half so much weight as some of the speakers would have us believe. But I take a very strong position against the election of the Governor-General by the Federation, not because I believe it would mean losing a link which binds us to England, but that we should have a man of such power and authority, derived directly from the people, that he would certainly clash with the other powers and authorities we propose to set 50 up under this Constitution. END QUOTE
.

Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 55 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. 60 END QUOTE p11 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. LYNE: First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the Federal Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of this community to take 5 what I may term the first step towards a severance from the mother-country, but the first step would be in the election of the Governor-General instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government. It is but a small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home Government; and I should like to know what power that Government would have over any Governor-General elected in 10 the manner desired. END QUOTE

Clearly, the Governor-General representing the British Crown never could be elected nor be appointed on recommendation by the Australian Parliament, as this may cause a conflict of 15 interest and prevent a Governor-General to be and be seen impartial. Fancy, the 1975 issue to again eventuate, and the Governor-General commissioning her son-in-law to become prime minister! there would be a clear implied bias!
20

Again: “instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government.”. This relates to 10 Downing Street, London, Home Office! No valid appointment can be made otherwise, as again the legal principles embedded in the constitution cannot be altered by the High Court of Australia, the Parliament, the Ministers, the Governor-General and/or the Queen because only the People can do so, and within limitations, exercising s128 referendum powers. 101 Inter-State Commission
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
END QUOTE

25 QUOTE

30

This also brings us to the promises of road funding, etc, during elections. Again, the provisions 35 of the constitution cannot be interfered with. the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there “shall be” *(mandatory) an Inter-State Commission, exercising powers regarding Trade and Commerce, and such further powers as the Parliament may provide for.
HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 40 QUOTE Commission obligatory. END QUOTE And HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 45 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament. END QUOTE

When Mr Malcolm Turnbull was so called leader of the opposition, he then was made aware of 50 my request to be appointed Inter-State Commissioner. Subsequently my 2 July 2013 request for the same was made know to you and him also. Mr Malcolm Turnbull responded that he would look into the matter. It appears to be extra ordinary that despite it being mandatory to have an Inter-State Commission both seems to ignore this, as did others! How can you expect people to respect you when you are so to say not trustworthy upon your own words? The constitution 55 expresses the will of the People, and anyone claiming to govern for all Australians but then ignore the will of the People can only be deemed to be a fraud and a humbug! With the carbon tax, it doesn’t require any legislation to abolish it, to stop it being applied, because the Government can simply direct not to have it applied. Governments are not required
p12 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

to enforce laws which goes against the will of the People, and in the recent election they trusted you to not apply the carbon tax, and now that somehow it will remain until 1 July 2014 is to me utter and sheer nonsense.
5

10

I understand that Mr Peter Dutton is “Sports Minister”, can you set out within which constitutional context you can have a Sports Minister? Don’t argue about external affairs, because the Framers of the Constitution made clear this related to the powers provided for in the constitution,. as such not for the Commonwealth to fancy and make up extra legislative powers that never existed.
.

Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of hon. gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr. Deakin, talks about the powers exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. They do not differ in any respect from the powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in any other country. Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here! Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.

15

20

Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited! END QUOTE

Whereas the powers of the Parliament and Ministers are limited by the “wrritten constitution”: we have, the British Parliament has no such limitations.
25 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. 30 END QUOTE http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-thepast/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-the-past QUOTE 35 Prime Minister Tony Abbott being congratulated by the Governor-General Quentin Bryce after he swore allegiance to her boss, the Queen, rather than to the people of Australia. (Image via The Australian) YESTERDAY ‒ Wednesday, 18 September 2013 ‒ the newly minted Australian Prime Minister Abbott returned to the past by swearing allegiance to the Queen whereas both Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard, on taking office, swore allegiance to Australia. 40 Responding to this, National Director of the Australian Republican Movement, David Morris, said in a statement: ‘Our elected representatives should swear allegiance solely to Australia, rather than loyalty to someone born to rule over an Empire long gone. We call upon all elected representatives to pledge 100% loyalty to Australia.’ Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard, as mentioned above, swore allegiance to Australia. 45 Prime Minister Abbott today followed his conservative predecessor, Prime Minister Howard, by swearing allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II at the official swearing in of the new Government in Canberra. The ARM’s Morris: ‘This is looking backwards when Australia should be confidently facing the future …. It’s no longer appropriate in today’s Australia to have divided loyalties. Back in the early twentieth century, Australians were still called “British subjects” and many still sang “God Save the Queen” but no more. Today our loyalty and our identity is Australian, not colonial. ‘Australia should always come first for our elected representatives. ‘Our nation’s values are democratic, as evidenced by the recent elections for both houses of Parliament. p13 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

50

To have an institution sitting above our Parliament, over which a foreign family is born to rule, is out of date with our identity as an independent nation.’ The Australian Republican Movement advocates a fully and unambiguously independent Australia. END QUOTE 5

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-the-past/ ?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-thepast
QUOTE

It’s worth remembering that on 3 December 2007, one week after the election of the new Rudd Federal Labor 10 government, a ‘very republican moment’ occurred when Kevin Rudd and his ministry swore an oath to “…the Commonwealth of Australia, its land and its people.” The significance of this moment was the new Federal ministers swore an Oath under Section 62 of the Australian Constitution to the people of Australia rather to Queen Elizabeth II, a foreign monarch. When Kevin Rudd was sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, wearing R.M. Williams boots and a grin as 15 wide as the verandah of his suburban Brisbane Queenslander, he declared: “I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the Prime Minister, so help me God.” Taking the office of Prime Minister (Executive Councillor) involves swearing an Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation. However, under Section 62 of the Constitution, the form of the oath of office is not prescribed for a minister but by 20 the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Of course, the new Oath was given to the Governor-General on Rudd’s advice, yet he could not have technically given that advice until he became an Executive Councillor. No doubt, this advice was relayed earlier, perhaps through or with the approval of the caretaker, John Howard. In taking this Oath, Rudd acknowledged the republican ideal that ultimate political authority lays with ‘the land and the people’ of Australia rather than with the British 25 monarch. The Rudd Oath should not be confused with the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation under Section 42 of the Constitution required to be made by a Member of Parliament or Senator before taking his or her seat.

p14 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Section 42 involves swearing or affirming to ‘…be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law.’ This Oath was also used for ministers until the Keating Labor government removed reference to the Sovereign. 5 However, with the election of the Howard Liberal government in 1996, the Oath to the Queen was restored but without any reference to ‘Her heirs and successors’. The real issue behind the question of the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation concerns where political authority ultimately resides. Does it originate from the divine, from God or from ‘the land and the people’? Should Australian political authority continue to be derived from the British monarch and, ultimately, God — or 10 should it be acknowledged that popular sovereignty resides in ‘the land and the people’ of Australia? This is a fundamental question for the republican debate. Republicanism does not acknowledge God as the ultimate source of authority in our society, rather it is ‘the land and the people’. In 1887, Henry Lawson wrote in his ‘Song of the Republic’: 15 Sons of the South, make choice between the land of the morn and the land of the e’en, the old dead tree and the young tree green, the land that belongs to the lord and the Queen, and the land that belongs to you. 20 The ‘currency lads’ of the mid-nineteenth century would often use the toast ‘To the land, boys’. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appeared to have taken Henry Lawson’s advice and chosen “the land that belongs to you” over the land that belongs to the lord and Queen. Prime Minister Gillard followed the lead set by Rudd, however Abbott has chosen to go back to the past where a foreign family born to rule over Australians is considered acceptable and, indeed, the normal state of affairs. 25 It is time all Australians advocated for a fully and unambiguously independent Australia. END QUOTE http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/coalition-swearing-in-tony-abbott QUOTE 30 As could have been predicted, blue ties and Bibles were thick on the ground. The new immigration minister, Scott Morrison, promised not to let anyone down. Republican Malcolm Turnbull pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen, his sonorous voice carrying the length of the room and out the french doors along the southern vista. END QUOTE 35

In my view, Mr Malcolm Turnbull while a well known advocate for the republican movement nevertheless realised that to be able to be a Minister of the Crown, he must swear an oath rto the reigning monarch he is to serve.
.

40

Regretfully many commentators misconceive this, and indeed below quoations also misconstrue that British constitution. http://australianpolitics.com/
QUOTE

45 The First Abbott Ministry Announced Sep 16, 2013 Leave a Comment The Prime Minister-elect, Tony Abbott, has announced the composition of his first ministry. The new executive has 30 members. The Cabinet has 19 members, the Outer Ministry 11, and there are 12 Parliamentary Secretaries. p15 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Announcing the ministry at a press conference in Canberra, Abbott said: “This is the team to provide strong and stable government. It builds on a strong, cohesive and united opposition.” END QUOTE 5 http://australianpolitics.com/ QUOTE Most members of the outer ministry are designated Assistant Ministers. “I’m determined to have clear lines of authority and a back-to-basics approach,” Abbott said. END QUOTE 10 http://australianpolitics.com/ QUOTE The First Abbott Ministry CABINET 15 1. 2. 3. 4. 20 5. 6. 7. 25 8. 9. Prime Minister – Tony Abbott Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, (Leader of the Nationals) – Warren Truss Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) – Julie Bishop Minister for Employment, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Public Service, (Leader of the Government in the Senate) – Senator Eric Abetz Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate), (Vice-President of the Executive Council) – Senator George Brandis Treasurer – Joe Hockey Minister for Agriculture, (Deputy Leader of the Nationals) – Barnaby Joyce Minister for Education, (Leader of the House) – Christopher Pyne Minister for Indigenous Affairs, (Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) – Senator Nigel Scullion

10. Minister for Industry – Ian Macfarlane 11. Minister for Social Services – Kevin Andrews 12. Minister for Communications – Malcolm Turnbull 30 13. Minister for Health, Minister for Sport – Peter Dutton 14. Minister for Small Business – Bruce Billson 15. Minister for Trade and Investment – Andrew Robb 16. Minister for Defence – Senator David Johnston 17. Minister for the Environment – Greg Hunt 35 18. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection – Scott Morrison 19. Minister for Finance – Senator Mathias Cormann OUTER MINISTRY 1. 40 2. 3. 4. 5. 45 6. 7. Assistant Minister for Social Services, (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) – Senator Mitch Fifield Assistant Minister for Employment, (Deputy Leader of the House) – Luke Hartsuyker Assistant Minister for Health, (Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) – Senator Fiona Nash Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC), Special Minister of State – Senator Michael Ronaldson Assistant Minister for Education – Sussan Ley Minister for Human Services – Senator Marise Payne Minister for Justice – Michael Keenan

p16 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

8. 9.

Assistant Minister for Defence – Stuart Robert Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women – Senator Michaelia Cash

10. Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development – Jamie Briggs 5 11. Assistant Treasurer – Senator Arthur Sinodinos AO PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES 1. 2. 3. 10 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 15 9. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture – Senator Richard Colbeck Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry – Bob Baldwin Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs – Senator Brett Mason Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer – Steven Ciobo Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services – Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment – Senator Simon Birmingham Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education – Senator Scott Ryan Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence – Darren Chester Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications – Paul Fletcher

10. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister – Josh Frydenberg 11. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister – Alan Tudge 12. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance – Michael McCormack END QUOTE 20

In my view, despite what the High Court of Australia may have ruled otherwise, only Ministers can be appointed within s64, this as the wording are clear:
QUOTE 25 64 Ministers of State The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth. Ministers to sit in Parliament After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. END QUOTE

30

35

It must therefore be very clear that any person appointed within s64 must be a Minister and not assisting a Minister, and must be a member of the Federal Executive. Therefore I view that each and every person listed within “OUTER MINISTRY” and “PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES” are not within the provisions of s66:
QUOTE

66 Salaries of Ministers
40

There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliamentotherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.
END QUOTE

As such none of them are entitled to receive any financial or other remuneration for their work, 45 as to receive this would place them in clear breach with s44 of the constitution and automatically their seats are vacant. Again parliamentarian secretaries and assisting Ministers would be in employment of the Commonwealth, not the British Crown, and hence would be in an “office of
p17 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

profit” and unable to hold a seat in Parliament. they are either public servants and ineligible to hold a seat or they are serving without any financial or other remuneration! As I understand it in 1999 a referendum was held with the following proposed amendment of the constitution:
QUOTE A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament." 10 END QUOTE

5

As I understand it this alteration of the constitution was vetoed.
.

It was a nonsense of a referendum because it would have had no legal affect upon the 15 constitution at all:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal 20 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision 25 for 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 Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE 30

Therefore, anyone wishing to pursue a republic would effectively have to get the people to dispose of the entire The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and have instead a republic constitution replace it.
35

The problem would be that many of the guarantees now embedded in the constitution may be no more. Ministers could then so to say rampage through provisions no matter what, as if there is no tomorrow, and we could end up like a third world country instead.

Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 40 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution. END QUOTE
.

45

WARNING!

Therefore, the constitution provides absolutely no mechanism to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into some republic. What could eventuate is defracturing of the political landscape in that some States may opt not to join any Republic federation, but rather become independent States nations. After all, once you dispose of The Commonwealth of 50 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) a federation is no more!

p18 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

ASSUMING THAT A REPUBLIC CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE CURRENT FEDERATION ONLY UNDERLINES THE GROSS MISCONCEPTION EXISTING.
.

An issue is, what is section 128 referendum powers about?
5
.

I cannot detect anything within the constitution that allow the alteration of any part of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) other then part 9 containing the constitution. This part 9 is silent as to the Monarchy.
10 Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE. Mr. CUTHBERT: Will hon. members permit me just to make one quotation from a work by a most eminent man, highly skilled in the art of warfare? Major Clarke, writing on the navy, sets forth the advantages which the colonies reap from remaining part of the empire. He summarises them as follows:Their commerce, That is, the commerce of the colonies. which is their very life, has received, and will receive the protection of the greatest naval power of the world. 20 2. The necessary standard of the local defences of their ports is reduced to a minimum. 3. They require to be able to resist a cruiser raid, since a hostile fleet cannot reach them in force, except on condition of defeating and destroying strong British squadrons. [start page 290] These are the words of one who speaks with authority, and who points out exactly the danger we are in. As long as England is mistress of the seas, as long as we are a dependency of England, we may rely on her support, and so long we may depend upon it no foreign power, however strong, can set foot on these shores. Since Major Clarke wrote on this subject we must not lose sight of the fact that we have taken a new departure, and that we recognise that our commerce is the very life of our colonies. We have recognised this, that it is unfair that the mother country should be saddled with the whole expense of defending our commerce 30 on the high seas; and therefore, I am proud to say, as the result of a conference which took place in London, and to which we sent delegates, that for the first time, I think, in English history the colonies have entered into a partnership by which they are enabled to have the advantage of the support of what may be termed an Australian squadron. Under the British flag we may rest in security, leaving it to the squadron in this part of her Majesty's dominions to protect our commerce, and taking upon ourselves the duty of defending our 35 shores. END QUOTE 25 Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GLYNN: 40 It is felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes, in the oath that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition of the Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through which on every public occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our domestic observances, in the offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in the time-honored motto of the nation. 45 END QUOTE
.

15

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST: We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born 50 in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired 55 his appointment. END QUOTE p19 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal 5 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision 10 for 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 Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE 15 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. 20 END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. 25 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. END QUOTE
.

30

35

40

45

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 50 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution. END QUOTE

55

It is for constitutional consideration totally irrelevant if the British Parliament enacted that Australians are “foreigners’ because an ordinary legislative power cannot override a constitution
p20 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

act. We are and remain to be British subjects of the Queen while we continue to have The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as our principle law. This right is embedded in the constitution and cannot be disposed off by the British 5 Parliament and/or by referendum!
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 50 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE 55 . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under 60 it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of p21 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as 5 will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE 10 HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.What are these privileges and immunities? That very question was dealt with in what are known as the Slaughter House cases in 1872,16 Wallace, 36, and in certain other cases. This is what the court said15 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the Government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions, free access to its sea ports through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, also to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice of the several states. Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal Government for his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign country; the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances; the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several states, and all rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations; and the right of a citizen of the United States of his own volition to become a citizen of any state of the Union by bona fide residence therein.

20

25 END QUOTE

The Commonwealth of Australia cannot be a foreign (Columbia) registered business entity because it is not even a corporation or country. It would be beyond the scope of the constitution to provide for this. Hence any government must immediately unregister the Commonwealth of 30 Australia and declare its former registering invalid.
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: 35 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction. END QUOTE 40

The High Court of Australia is NOT part of Government, as is generally claimed, as it is created within and part of the constitution. the Commonwealth Government cannot therefore interfere with the judicial powers of the High Court if Australia. NOR IS THEREFORE VALID IT GST REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON ANY COURT, AS IT CAN BE DEEMED TO 45 INTERFERE WITH THE JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE COURTS.
CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECTION 43. QUOTE Attempting to pervert justice 50 (1) Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this Act, to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. 55 (2) For the purposes of an offence against subsection (1), absolute liability applies to the physical element of circumstance of the offence that the judicial power is of the Commonwealth. (3) For the person to be guilty of an offence against subsection (1), the person's conduct must be more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely p22 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact. (4) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if doing the thing attempted is impossible. 5 END QUOTE

This also applies to the federal judicial powers exercised by any state court.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 10 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as 15 any private person would be. END QUOTE HANSARD 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 20 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: We have agreed to sub-clause 13, dealing with the incorporation of banks, and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made in regard to the incorporation of companies. Why should they not be under the control of federal officers? At the present time the law as to incorporation is different in the different colonies, and the result is [start page 686] extremely unsatisfactory in many cases. I do not see why we should not make the same provision in regard to the incorporation of companies as we have made in regard to the incorporation of banks. We might introduce at the commencement of the sub-clause words to this effect: "The registration or incorporation of companies." Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I do not think we should. There are a great number of different corporations. For instance, there are municipal, trading, and charitable corporations, and these are all incorporated in different ways according to the law obtaining in the different states. Mr. MUNRO: But as to trading corporations! Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is sometimes difficult to say what is a trading corporation. What is important, however, is that there should be a uniform law for the recognition of corporations. Some states might require an elaborate form, the payment of heavy fees, and certain guarantees as to the stability of members, while another state might not think it worth its while to take so much trouble, having regard to its different circumstances. I think the states may be trusted to stipulate how they will incorporate companies, although we ought to have some general law in regard to their recognition. Sir JOHN BRAY: I think the point raised by the hon. member, Mr. Munro, is worth a little more consideration than hon. members seem disposed to bestow upon it. We know what some of these corporations are; and I think joint-stock companies might be incorporated upon some uniform method. In South Australia, a banking company is not allowed to be incorporated under the Companies Act; still, there is nothing in Victoria of which I am aware to prevent a banking company from being registered there as a limited company and opening a branch in South Australia a few days afterwards. I think it is necessary, therefore, to have some uniform law. There is nothing in which the public should have more confidence than in banks which are in any way recognised by the state; and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. Many companies, although doing business under different names, are, in reality, banks. Mr. MUNRO: The banks are incorporated under the Companies Act in Victoria! Sir JOHN BRAY: You can establish financial companies, which you do not call banks, but which answer all the purposes of banks. We have provided that the federal parliament shall legislate as to the incorporation of banks; but there is nothing to prevent the incorporation by the states themselves, quite apart from the federal parliament, of trading companies which will do all the ordinary business of banks. If it is desirable to intrust legislation as to the incorporation of banks to the federal government, there is no reason why we should not say that the registration of financial companies doing all the business of banks should be dealt with in the same manner. Sub-clause agreed to. END QUOTE
.

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

p23 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

This underlines that the provisions of s51(xx) was for “I think the states may be trusted to stipulate
how they will incorporate companies, although we ought to have some general law in regard to their recognition.” and “and I think we should have some uniform system of incorporating banks. ”.

While Mason CJ was reportedly having stated that he held the High Court of Australia would at 5 times use its judgments as to make up where it held the parliament had failed to provide for by legislation. Clearly this was beyond the powers of the High Court of Australia. Indeed, the 2006 “WorkChoices” decision was appalling and a gross distortion of what the Framers of the Constitution intended:
10

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

In “076-Chapter 022A -failure of the case-etc” I exposed how the High Court of Australia totally 15 distorted the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. (As it did in Sykes v Cleary and Sue v Hill)
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs. END QUOTE And HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states. END QUOTE And HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made. END QUOTE And HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question. END QUOTE HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is considered by all of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic concern. We do not want to interfere with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a thing as this it must be the Federal Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will introduce the greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen. Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question. 50 [start page 192] END QUOTE . HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.55 The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subjectmatter of them, it can do so. END QUOTE p24 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

20

25

30

35

40

45

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Why should you interfere with the laws in the different colonies affecting the relations of masters and servants, which are purely a matter of domestic legislation? Why should you hand over that purely state function to the federal authority? END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 10 Mr. LEAKE (Western Australia).-When this question was before the Convention in Adelaide I had no opportunity of casting my vote for or against the proposal, because with other members of the Western Australian delegation I had already returned to my own colony. For that reason, I do not wish to give a silent vote upon this occasion. It is my intention to vote against the amendment, because I am impressed with the argument that this is a matter not so much for the Federal Government as for the states Governments. The contention that to insert the proposed words would do no harm because they are more idle words does not seem to me to be based upon sound reason. If honorable members have been impressed by the warning given to us by the Premier of New South Wales a few days ago, they will see that words of this sort are not inserted in the Constitution. If this power is given to the Central Government the states Governments will be deprived of the right to legislate upon the subject. Mr. DOBSON.-Not at all. Mr. OCONNOR.-When the power of the Federal Government is once exercised of course it will. Mr. BARTON.-The moment the device of extending a dispute so as to put it under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is adopted the state Government will be unable to act. 25 Mr. LEAKE.-I confess that I think the insertion of the proposed words might deprive the states of a right which they now have. If strikes and industrial disputes were always to be universal perhaps the better medium of settling them would be the Central Government, but I cannot bring myself to believe that they will always be universal. In my experience industrial disputes depend a great deal upon local conditions, and that being so, surely the best authority to settle them is the local authority. We know that, in different colonies, we have varying rates of wages, and we have unionists and non-unionists. In some of the colonies the unionists are more numerous than in other colonies. Now, how can the Central Government, without that local knowledge which is so essential in dealing with difficulties of this kind, apply themselves to the proper settlement of a dispute? Surely it is better that the states should be allowed to settle the disputes which occur within their own boundaries. If we test the practicability of the proposed arrangement by the experience of the past, we shall find that we are, asking the Central Government, to accept a very great responsibility upon an enormous scale, which the states have been-unable to meet on a small scale. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to burden the Constitution with this provision. I am entirely in accord with the views which the honorable and learned member. (Mr. Symon) has expressed upon this question. A good point was made by the honorable member (Mr. Trenwith) when he said, that perhaps the best tribunal for settling these matters was that of public opinion. After all, that is but a sentimental tribunal, but if sentimental questions are to be [start page 206] settled by some sentimental controlling power, perhaps the Central Government may be able to exercise that power. Another point occurs to me. As I said before, we must not assume that industrial disputes will always be universal throughout the continent. Under the Federation there may be a sub-division of states. Suppose, for the sake of illustration, a dispute occurred in an isolated colony like Western Australia. The chances are that if a strike were to occur in any of our big mining centres, it would, considering our peculiar conditions, in no way affect our neighbours upon this side of Australia. Could not such a dispute be better dealt with by the local authorities than by the federal authorities? Mr. HOWE.-There would be no occasion for the federal authority to interfere. Mr. HIGGINS.-The federal authority could not interfere. The dispute must be one extending beyond any one state." 50 Mr. BARTON.-That gives a direct incentive for the extension of the dispute. Mr. LEAKE.-Of course, it is not necessary for the purposes of my argument that the dispute should be a mining dispute; it might be a dispute affecting some other industry. Then, again, disputes might arise in Tropical Australia, in that part of the continent where there may ultimately be new states. A different condition of affairs would prevail there to that prevailing in any other part of Australia; but such a dispute might extend over the border of another state, in which case, if the amendment were carried, it would come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament. But would not the authorities of the states in which the dispute occurred be in a better position to take steps to bring it to a conclusion than the federal authority? I p25 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

15

20

30

35

40

45

55

apologize to the Convention for having detained them on this subject, but under the circumstances I did not wish to give a silent vote. Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I should like to add to what has been said by some honorable members in opposition to the insertion of these words, speaking from the point of view of the possible efficacy of legislation upon this matter, that the question of the adoption of compulsory arbitration and conciliation was very largely gone into by a Labour Commission which sat in England some seven or eight years ago. That commission examined close upon 500 witnesses, the greater number of whom were representatives of labour, and their decision was, as expressed in an article by Mr. John Rae, in the Contemporary Review, that an Act of Parliament should not be passed to interfere with what is being done by voluntary co-operation. Mr. HIGGINS.-But there has been a forward movement since that time even in England. Mr. GLYNN.-I do not think the position of affairs there has altered very much during the last six or seven years, or that the well-thought-out recommendation of representatives of labour-recommendations based upon the evidence of members of the several labour societies could have been upset within that time. Here we have from Mr. Rae, who as a writer is one of the greatest upholders of labour, the statement that the witnesses who were examined on behalf of labour organizations would have nothing to do with compulsory state interference. Mr. Rae cites the evidence of several witnesses. In preface to an extract from the evidence of one of them, he saysOne thing was clear-they would have nothing to do with State arbitration or a State-appointed arbitrator. I say," said Mr. Trow, let Parliament mind its own business. We know better what man to select for an arbitrator than Parliament does. We do not want them to foist upon us an arbitrator." Going further, we have the evidence of Mr. Knight, a representative of capital, who is cited by Mr. Rae in justification of his conclusions:"I speak," he said, from long experience of the organization that I represent here to-day, and I say that we can settle all our differences [start page 207] without any interference on the part of Parliament or any one else." Since 1866, when the late Mr. Mundella established a board of conciliation for the hosiery trade, there have been numerous boards of conciliation established in connexion with various trades. Their operations begin by the establishment of the board through the medium of both sides to the dispute. They discuss the matter amicably, and if they can come to no agreement it is referred to arbitration. The mode of enforcing the award of the arbitrators is expulsion from the society. If the decision is against members of a capitalist organization, the officials of that organization are supposed to enforce the mandate of the board by expelling such of its members as refuse to recognise it. If the decision of the board is against the demands of workmen, if they do not comply with that decision, they are expelled from their organization. In Middleborough no less than 400 members of a trade society were expelled because they did not accept the wages awarded by a board of arbitration. Mr. HIGGINS.-And yet it is said that it is impossible to enforce these awards. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 40 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have not risen for the purpose of making a long speech, because I am one of those who hold the opinion that when what one has to say has been as well. said by others it is unnecessary to express that opinion again. I should like to say a word with reference to a remark which fell from my honorable friend (Sir Joseph Abbott). When my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Symon) said 45 the words proposed to be inserted were either idle or mischievous, Sir Joseph Abbott asked, if they were idle words, what harm was there in inserting them in the Constitution. I hope that reasons of that kind will never be accepted. With every respect to my honorable friend (Sir Joseph Abbott), we are not about to make a Constitution which we consider it advisable to fill with this project or that project simply because we think that the insertion of it will do no harm. A federation is supposed by all of us to 50 be something which we undertake for the positive good which it brings, for the positive improvements in certain conditions which it will bring about, and we propose to federate in [start page 214] those matters which cannot be carried out by local legislation and administration, or which cannot be so effectually carried out by those means. The contest between us here to a large extent is as to whether the questions of arbitration and conciliation may not be as effectually dealt with by the local Parliament as by the Federal Parliament, 55 whether there will be a substantial improvement in the condition of things, and whether this is a class of dispute or a class of subject which is comprehended within the purview of what we regard as federal concerns. I am not going to traverse the ground which has been covered on that particular. As my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Symon) has so effectively and thoroughly dealt with the arguments which were used p26 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

on the side of the proposers of this amendment. I intend to content myself with adopting in the main the conclusions he arrived at, and in voting with him; and I might here suggest that, as this matter has been so thoroughly canvassed, it is about time that we came to a decision. 5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-As one who voted in Adelaide on this subject, and as one who believes to the fullest possible extent in the value of boards of conciliation and arbitration, if such boards and courts can be arranged, I desire to justify in some measure my giving the same vote as I gave then. This amendment does not hand over to the federal power the entire dealing with industrial disputes over the whole of the Commonwealth, but only over so much of the Commonwealth as may be affected by those disputes. It therefore imposes upon the various states the necessity for having courts of conciliation and arbitration to deal with the matters affecting their states only. That seems to me to be an admission of the principles principle which I think must be admitted in the present circumstances-that anything whatever in the nature of government or administration which can be better dealt with by a state than by the Commonwealth shall be left to the state. I claim Mr. Deakin's emphatic indorsement of that principle, and I claim his vote, because his vote if he goes with me will affirm the principle. It surely must be better for the employees that their disputes should be settled by courts which know all the circumstances, which understand the condition of things best, than that they should be settled by possibly a distant tribunal which is ignorant of the environment and particular conditions affecting any industry in any one of the states. We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states. Mr. DEAKIN.-Is there power to do it? I do not think there is. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is mentioned as one of the contingent powers. Mr. KINGSTON.-That was said by an objector. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-And a necessary power to be exercised for the effective settlement of a dispute. 25 Mr. KINGSTON.-That was said by a critic. Mr. OCONNOR.-It must be so. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-And as in the case of wages, which necessarily vary according to varying conditions within a state, so it must be remembered that there are many other matters which are largely ruled and governed by local conditions. I see the matter just as strongly now as I did in Adelaide. I see that it is a matter which should be left to the adjudication of the states; and I would urge further that, by the interference of the Commonwealth Government in matters affecting the different states as to industrial disputes, there will be a probability, possibly more than a probability, of very serious friction arising between the Commonwealth and the states. When the honorable member who moved this amendment rose, I quite thought that he [start page 215] rose with the intention of withdrawing it. After seeing that that amendment, moved by himself as an extreme liberal, and supported by some as extreme liberals, came to be supported by extreme conservatives, or I may say tories, I was all the more confirmed in that idea when he admitted that the support of my right honorable friend (Sir John Forrest) almost convinced him that he had better leave this matter alone. Mr. MCMILLAN.-Perhaps he will withdraw it now. 40 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I thought he would then, and I hope be will now withdraw it as something which will not be to the interest of labour or to the interest of the states. Question-That the new sub-section proposed to be inserted be so inserted-put. The committee dividedAyes. ... ... ... ... 22 45 Noes. ... ... ... ... 19 Majority for the sub-section ... 3 END QUOTE 50

10

15

20

30

35

In my view, the High Court of Australia deceived the people with its WorkChoices judgment as while it referred to the Hansard debates of 17 January 1898 it somehow didn’t disclose relevant parts but I view concealed this. This place in question, I view, the impartiality of the High Court of Australia, by so to say inventing legislative powers to exist where known was and they should or could have been aware of this if they had appropriately considered the very Hansard records they referred to!
p27 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT.5 Can it be suggested, however high the Federal High Court may be in regard to attainments, that under any circumstances the Judges of that court would have the experience, the training, and the knowledge of the men composing the Court of the Privy Council? Would it be possible to separate the members of the Federal High Court from local influences? Unintentionally, men are influenced by their surrounding conditions. It does not follow because a man is to-day in public life as Attorney-General, and tomorrow is sitting on the bench wearing the ermine, that he can dissociate himself or separate himself from local surroundings and be unbiased or uninfluenced by those considerations. Take a case of importance arising here. I admit that our Judges have great learning and extensive knowledge, and I admit the great power and the great strength of our Supreme Courts throughout the various colonies, but I say that they can have no experience equal to the men who occupy positions on the bench of the Privy Council. We are told, however, that the members of the Privy Council do not understand our law, that they do not know our conditions, and that they are unacquainted with local influences. Well, I have always considered that a very trifling matter in fact, I have thought it was a very desirable thing that they did not understand our local conditions, because our laws are not to be interpreted in regard to local conditions, but according to the intent contained within every word in them, apart from local conditions. I have heard men express their astonishment that the Judges of our own Supreme Court have not taken into consideration the Hansard debates when they were giving judgment. I feel quite sure that when an appeal goes to the Privy Council all these considerations are completely wiped out. The members [start page 2290] of the Board of the Privy Council do not consider our local conditions, but interpret our Acts in the words in which they are printed. I have already referred to the two chief objections to appeals to the Privy Council; first, the expense, and, secondly, the delay. I have endeavoured to show that the expense is not so enormous as it is represented to be. If honorable members will look at the return in relation to appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of the Supreme Court in Queensland every layman, at all events, will be struck by the fact that the expenses of one appeal were only £29 in Queensland, and £219 in the Privy Council-that means the taxed costs of the appeal. It has nothing to do with the local costs; it means the preparation of the transcript and the final cost in London. The difference between the cost of appeals to the proposed High Court and the cost of appeals to the Privy Council is well but rather under stated, by Sir Lambert Dobson, in a document which is quoted at page 969 of the report of the debates of this Convention at Adelaide; and I think that we are very much indebted to Sir Edward Braddon for quoting that information in the speech which he delivered on that occasion. In many cases counsel's fees at the present time are higher here than I have ever known them before, and I say this with a knowledge extending over 30 years of practical experience. Mr. BARTON.-Counsel's fees are a great deal lower with us than they were a few years ago. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

35

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 40 QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE

Likewise, the voting rights in the Senate by any Territorian representatives, as adjudicated upon 45 by the High Court of Australia,, I view is unconstitutional in that it is a State House, not a Territorian House.
HANSARD 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 50 Mr. BARTON: I ask the hon. member not to insist upon his amendment, which refers to territories and not to new States. It would be impossible for the Commonwealth ever to consent to the admission of territories which might be sparsely populated, and which would, [start page 1015] according to the hon. member's proposal, be entitled to six members in the Senate. Territories or districts which are only in a primitive state of development are intended to be dealt with by a clause of this sort. They are in a transition state, and they are governed by the Commonwealth until such time as the States have reached a condition which would entitle them to representation in the Senate. Bryce says: Besides these full members there are also eight territorial delegates, one from each of the territories, regions in the West enjoying a species of self -government, but not yet formed into States. These delegates sit and speak, but have no right to vote, being unrecognised by the Constitution. They are, in fact, merely persons whom the House under a Statute admits to its floor and permits to address it p28 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

55

5

This Constitution is on a little more liberal basis than that in this respect: the Commonwealth in the case of the secession of a territory which is cumbersome, gives power to allow the representation of it in either House of Parliament under the terms which the Parliament thinks fit. Instead of the territories being governed in a way that only entitles them to be represented as delegates there is power to give them a certain degree of representation. It is quite as much as they can have the right to expect, and this is a more liberal provision than is to be found in the American Constitution. I trust we shall not have to divide on this. END QUOTE

10 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE [start page 1754] Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is admitted to 15 political rights at the will of the Commonwealth, and upon such terms as the Commonwealth may impose. Every person who has rights as a member of the Commonwealth must be a citizen either of some state or some territory. It is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory that he has any political rights in the Commonwealth. END QUOTE 20

As for the issue of so called asylum seekers/refugees, again whatever treaties the Commonwealth engage in unless they are within its legislative powers and legislation enforces it they are not legally enforceable.

25 Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution, 30 where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think, 35 ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes. END QUOTE Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject? Mr. WISE.-I presume so. Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects. Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth." I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case. Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien. Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders. Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out. END QUOTE

40

45

50

55

An issue we obviously cannot ignore is the financial affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia!
60 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.p29 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives 5 and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage of its existence. END QUOTE Hansard 4-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 10 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Clause 83.-No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth, except under appropriation made by law. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I beg to move15 That at the end of clause 83, there be added the words "but until the first appropriation the Governor-General in Council may draw from the Treasury, and expend, such moneys as may be necessary for the maintenance of any department transferred to the Commonwealth under this Constitution." This is an amendment of substance, which I will explain in a few words. Clause 83 means that no money can be spent unless Parliament passes an Appropriation Act. 20 END QUOTE

One then has to ask when did federal Parliament approve the billions of dollars overspend by Rudd/Gillard led governments?
.

25 Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure? Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure! 30 Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war? Mr. BARTON: Yes. 35 END QUOTE

If therefore not even in time of war an increase of expenditure beyond yearly expenditure is permissible, and as also was made clear must be in consideration of taxation, then how on earth can wse end up in billions of dollars in debt?
.

40 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution? Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them. 45 [start page 1773] END QUOTE

Why then are religious organisations entitled to tax exemptions and by this can trade at a lower cost then genuine businesses? This not for profit registration in my view should exclude religious or other sect organisations, as those who do not ascribe to any religion end up having to make up 50 the shortfall of taxation because of religious tax exemptions. Likewise tax deductions to religious organisations should be denied, as they are unconstitutional.
p30 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an annual service. 5 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill? Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service. Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law. 10 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a service. END QUOTE

The following quotation also includes:
15 . But I hope Mr. Henry will withdraw his motion, because to state the matter so broadly as that the Commonwealth shall come to the aid of a state might, I am afraid, lead to very serious reckless financing on the part of some states under some possible conditions.

This was in relation to the now s96 that was then defeated but later inserted in the premiers conference. 20 In my view there was indication by the Framers of the Constitution that somehow the Commonwealth could stipulate conditions ordinary not permissible within the context of the constitution, as implied by the High Court of Australia, to that it can place conditions normally not permitted, because as quoted above every section relates to every other section and hence s96 is limited in that regard.
25 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-Higher up in the clause you will see that it says that, whatever is taken over, the state is to "indemnify the Commonwealth." 30 Mr. HOLDER.-If the words I have quoted have the meaning which Mr. Reid says they have, it disposes of my first point. My next point is that in clause 52, it is provided that the Federal Parliament shall have the power of "borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth"; and there is no provision anywhere that I know of in this Constitution to limit the expenditure of money so borrowed. There are limits to the expenditure of revenue. It would be quite impossible during the five years to render special aid to, any state under the clause we have agreed to to-day, because the revenue is appropriated. But the provision I have quoted deals with borrowed money, and I know [start page 1114] of nothing in this Constitution which would limit or control the expenditure of borrowed money except the Loan Act of the Federal Parliament which authorizes the loan. Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52? 40 Mr. HOLDER.-Yes. Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thought fit. Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that, according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money on the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of that money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the money. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and in such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent a Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the proceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their needs, or upon some other principle? Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

35

45

50

p31 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth," not of the states. Mr. HOLDER.-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:5 The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to all or any of the matters following. Well, that includes the borrowing of money. Mr. ISAACS.-It is the Commonwealth as distinguished from the state that is to borrow; the money is only to be borrowed for the purposes of the Commonwealth. 10 Mr. REID.-Look at clause 81, where it is clearly set out thatAll revenues raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, under the authority of this Constitution, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the public service of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided by this Constitution. 15 Mr. HOLDER.-With all due respect, I do not think that that clause applies. Mr. REID.-Yes; it covers every appropriation issued from the Treasury. Mr. HOLDER.-I do not think so. I think clause 81 deals with revenue. Mr. REID.-You receive revenue, and you appropriate money for expenditure. 20 Mr. HOLDER.-I do not suppose it is intended that the term "Consolidated Revenue Fund," used in clause 81, shall include both revenue and loan money. We are surely going to keep these two separate. Mr. REID.-There is no provision of that sort. Mr. HOLDER.-Then I would suggest that words should be inserted in order to provide that loan money and revenue shall be kept separate. I hope we shall have a Loan Account and a Consolidated Revenue Account, and by no means mix up the two. I take it that clause 81 does not refer to any loan fund at all, but simply to revenue. The term "Consolidated Revenue Fund" defines it clearly. Of course, I am not expressing a legal opinion in a chamber of lawyers such as this is. I should be unwilling to do that. I simply rose with the object of putting forward these points with a view of obtaining a statement of authoritative opinion in regard to them. It appears to me that the clauses I have mentioned imply the possibility of some assistance being rendered to a state in difficulties. It seems to me that, as no assistance could be rendered out of revenue, some assistance might be rendered out of loans, or there might be a guarantee of a loan, [start page 1115] or some other way of rendering financial aid to a state that might be devised. But I hope Mr. Henry will withdraw his motion, because to state the matter so broadly as that the Commonwealth shall come to the aid of a state might, I am afraid, lead to very serious reckless financing on the part of some states under some possible conditions. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-My honorable friend (Mr. Holder) has put the matter with his usual clearness, and has very convincingly shown that at any rate there is very considerable doubt as to the question which has been exercising our minds, as to whether it would be an implied power in the Commonwealth to come to the assistance of a state in financial straits. And, therefore, if the existence of the power is involved in doubt, it would be exceedingly desirable that some provision-I do not say the provision moved by my honorable friend, who is not wedded to the particular words of his amendment, or any other-should be inserted, so as to make it clear that that power exists. Now, I was very glad to hear Mr. Isaacs express his desire to eliminate from this discussion, although we may use the word "insolvency," all idea of its being suggested that we contemplate the actual insolvency of any particular state. We cannot discuss a subject like this without using the common words "bankruptcy" and "insolvency," and if we have to speak of state bankruptcy, or state insolvency, we do not mean to impute that any state of the Commonwealth, under any set of circumstances, is likely to repudiate its obligations. Mr. ISAACS.-Such a thing is absolutely impossible. Mr. SYMON.-Therefore, while we use the terms "bankruptcy" and "insolvency" as applying to a possible state of things which we wish to avert, it is not to be imagined for a moment that we contemplate that such a state of things is going to exist, but we mean that a state may be in such a condition of strait, or the Treasurer of that state maybe in such a condition of administrative embarrassment, that it may be necessary to have re-course to the Commonwealth for assistance in some shape or other. Now, I also desire to say that I do not think it is necessary to determine, and it will be impossible for this Convention to determine, whether or not this implied power exists in the p32 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

25

30

35

40

45

50

5

10

Constitution. There might be, and no doubt would be, a strong difference of opinion upon the subject, and even if we, assembled here, were unanimous on the subject, that fact would not assist the final determination of the question when the exigency arose. But I agree with Mr. O'Connor that undoubtedly in the distribution of the surplus, and in dealing with the financial condition of the states, the Commonwealth would be animated by a desire to see that the states were placed in a position to meet all their engagements. The difficulty which Mr. Henry sees, and to which he directs his amendment, is as to the condition of things during the five years' interval-during the bookkeeping period-when there is an express appropriation of the surplus moneys. During that time Mr. Henry fears it is possible, without mentioning any particular colony, that the Treasurer of one of the states might be unable to see his way to meet his public engagements. Mr. REID.-He could adopt Mr. Walker's proposal for capitalizing discrepancies. Mr. SYMON.-That is one of those delightfully scientific proposals that appeal to the mind of the statistician and the financier more than to the mind of a humble layman, and I am sure that if there is one member of this Convention competent to solve the problem of capitalizing a financial discrepancy it is Mr. Walker. However, I have pointed out what seems to me to be the difficulty to which Mr. Henry has addressed his amendment, and I feel that Mr. O'Connor's [start page 1116] argument, powerful as it is in reference to the condition of things after the expiration of the five years, is absolutely without force as applied to the condition of things to which Mr. Henry's amendment is directed. But I go further than that, and I take up the view which was dealt with by Mr. O'Connor on the broad ground-and that is the position to which I wish to direct the attention of members of the Convention-of whether it is politic or right to introduce this amendment into the Constitution. If this power is implied in the Constitution, then the amendment merely asserts and makes absolutely clear a power which the Commonwealth might exercise if the necessity arose. On the other hand, if it is not implied in the Constitution, it seems to me that it is a power that ought to be in the Constitution, so as to enable the Commonwealth to do what I believe it would be the disposition of the Federal Parliament to do, namely, to come to the aid of any state which sought its interference to protect that state from financial disaster or financial strait. I admit all the possibilities on the two grounds put by Mr. Holder-that there is a possibility of this provision leading to reckless financing on the part of the states, and also the other ground that it imposes an obligation on the Commonwealth, and a difficulty with which the Federal Parliament and the Federal Executive may have to deal. But those two things do not seem to me to outweigh the advantage of having this power clearly expressed in the Constitution, to enable the Federal Parliament to give that assistance which might be absolutely essential to the stability and even to the existence of a particular state. Now, I will suppose the case of a state in which such a condition of things has arisen. But again, I say, I do not believe that such a condition of things would ever occur in any of the states of this Commonwealth. Still, suppose a state got into financial embarrassment, and there was a tendency towards, or a talk of, repudiation, why should not the Federal Executive and the Federal Parliament, in the interests of the Commonwealth, come to the assistance and relief of that state? Would it not be infinitely better that the Commonwealth should exercise a power of that kind than that it should allow a blemish to be put on the honour and good faith of the entire Commonwealth, which would result from any one state repudiating its obligations? I admit that there are disadvantages and inconveniences on the one side, but on the other there is the great principle that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to maintain the existence, the integrity, and the solvency of every state. And I do say that that is the function of the Commonwealth. Mr. REID.-Then it had better be put in the Bill, and let the people know what they are doing. If they are going to enter into a contract of that sort, the people had better know it.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 END QUOTE And Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 50 Dr. COCKBURN.-The whole proposal is foreign to the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitution lays it down that the Commonwealth is to deal equally with all the states whether it is in the matter of taxation, of bounties, or of trade, and we may as well strike out the provision that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth if we are to contemplate that after the taxation has been raised the proceeds may be handed over to any one colony. The thing will not bear a moment's investigation, and I hope the honorable member will not press his proposal to a division. It is a pity that the amendment has been brought forward. There is no possibility, nor does any one contemplate the possibility, of any of the states being in a worse financial position than they are in at the present time. On the contrary, I believe that their financial position, good as it is now, will be infinitely improved. END QUOTE p33 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

55

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE

6 Recommendation of money votes
5

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.
Chapter I The Parliament Part V Powers of the Parliament

Section 57
10

32 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

57 Disagreement between the Houses
If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time. If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.
END QUOTE

15

20

25

30

FOR THE ABOVE THEN CLEARLY THE BUDGET MUST BE HANDED DOWN TO ALLOW FOR THE EVENT OF A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION ON PASSING SUPPLY BILLS, ETC, AND AS SUCH MUST BE HANDED DOWN NO LATER THEN BEFORE THE END OF THE CALENDER YEAR, SO THAT IF THERE IS TO BE A SECOND SUBMISSION TO THE SENATE AND A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION AND A POSSIBLE 40 JOINT SITTING THEN THE TIME IS PROVIDED FOR THIS, PRIOR TO THE NEW FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENCING ON 1 JULY FOLLOWING
35

There is a lot more to it all but for now this should do it. what we need badly, and long overdue, is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Don’t forget the hyphens!), a constitutional 45 council that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional provisions and limitations. The cost of past referendum,s such as the nonsense about a republic could have been avoided. The same about this so called local council issue. Likewise, other matters. We need an independent body that can deal with this without fear and favor and we do not have this ongoing 50 undermining of our constitutional rights. I may not have your educational certificates but then again I went to the “school of life”, and I am mostly self educated. it would be interesting to discover if you actually would support me to be appointed as Inter-State Commissioner, after all I seem to understand in constitutional context 55 better what this is for and how it is to be applied then others do.
p34 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

5

One thing however you have to keep in mind that there will be a time that you will no longer be Prime Minister and then to claim you could or should have done things you didn’t do its too late. Your descendants then may look upon your failures to act and in particular if it affect them adversely.
.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE

10

15

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST (not being a republican or a monarchist) I hold it essential that those who are seeking to rely upon the law, in particular our primary law the constitution, show examples of themselves adhering to the true meaning and applicatuion of the constitution and not just to what might suit them. 20 As a “sentry” you have the obligation to ensure that evern the mandatory Inter-State Commission is working as required. Preferably without any mates-in-the-job appointment because the constitution is too important for this.
.

Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 25 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. WISE: I can see no other course. It has taken 100 years for the United States to pass a Civil Service Act, and now it is not of very much value. If we get a party system, and follow it out in the appointment of civil servants, we will be initiating a system of corruption which would gain strength every day. 30 END QUOTE

When I read about the thousands of public servants who lost their job because of a change of government of a different political colour then surely this underlines the abuse of appointments. Governments are there appointed to be advisors to a governor-General/governor and should be 35 acting impartial without political bias, even so they may belong to a specific political agenda. they are appointed as advisors (ministers of the Crown) for all people, not just their political party membership. Therefore, their staff should be general, regardless if those they employ are of other political organisations. Thereby a change of government will not cost so to say an arm and a leg on pay out of terminations! Even with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco we had a staff 40 turnover costing the public a lot of money, even so both belonged to the same political party. Likewise all this overseas travel should be considerably reduced. Neither should former Members of Parliament be entitled to any free travel. Here we have a former prime minister working for a private corporation, but travelling at the expense of the taxpayers, by planes, etc! Surely this is utter and sheer nonsense and is unconstitutional.
45
.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all issues and details. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
®

50

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(

Our name is our motto!)

p35 20-9-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful