You are on page 1of 37

Chapter 0003 Page 1

Chapter 0003 CIVIL –POLITICAL & RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES


.
* Gerrit, what are the limits of legislative powers really?
.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as I did set in the previous “Chapter 0002 Who can represent a
party in legal proceedings” lawyers are not specifically trained as CONSTITUTIONALISTS and
as result even when they study the constitution and the creation of it they misconceive the true
meaning and application of it. For example the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have researched extensively certain constitutional issues and have
not been confronted between conflicts of legal studies versus constitutional meanings and
applications and therefore understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of
constitutional provisions and limitations.
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a
case which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from
acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under adverse
conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that state. The
state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or anything else-and
I am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration
of its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the
administration of its affairs.
END QUOTE
.
As for s.51 “(xxix) external affairs” of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) it is very clear that such powers of making treaties , etc was limited to the powers already
elsewhere provided for in the constitution to the commonwealth. Hence, the 1992 Tasmania Dam
case was in my view ill conceived because the commonwealth couldn’t create legislative powers
where it had none and as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
.
HANSARD 24-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-It would be the same as federalizing our lands.
Mr. OCONNOR.-It would, because the value of the land is inextricably mixed up with
the value of the water supply to it.
Mr. HIGGINS.-All conditions would apply to lands; all circumstances affect their value.
END QUOTE
.
The Constitution Convention Debates makes clear that WATER that falls on a property belongs to
the owner of that property. However, the usage of the WATER must be in such manner that it does
not interfere with the rights of others. More over, that by federation. it means that riparian rights are
applicable.
I understand that the Commonwealth with agreement of the States has discontinued the Inter-State
Commission, but no such powers existed for the Commonwealth and the State to do so and hence
the Commonwealth of Australia itself is clearly at fault in that regard also, as are the States.

Chapter 0003 Page 1


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 2

QUOTE
Commission obligatory.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of
Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
What has eventuated however in passing of time is that the Prime minister, albeit not mentioned in
the written constitution still was all along intended by the Framers of the Constitution to be an
advisor to the governor-General has cause the creation of the office of the prime minister and then
allocated funds which is used to so to say pork barrelling for political purposes projects in defiance
of constitutional limitations and to circumvent s.101 Inter-State Commission involvement ands
CoAG (Council of Australian Governments) is a clear example of this corruption of powers.
Still, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that a dispute about WATER would be for the
High Court of Australia to determine judicially! This, as it is a REPARIAN RIGHT issue that is a
judicial issue. However the States refuse to involve the High Court of Australia so far because each
may fear that the judicial decision may remove their (misplaced) power play powers
.
HANSARD 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-It must be a valid Commonwealth law.

Mr. REID.-Yes, but a valid Commonwealth law may in the interests of navigation
prevent irrigation. It may absolutely prevent any water conservation. I do not suppose
such a thing would ever happen, but I only refer to it by way of illustration. If it did
happen the aggrieved state, on which a terrible injury would be inflicted, has to appear
before the High Court to complain of this. It would be told, it is true this is an
abominable wrong, and we only wish we had power to redress it; but this Act
deliberately states that when the federal law comes into collision with a state law, passed
in the exercise of the state's sovereign powers, still that law must go down, just as if it
was an interference with a subject handed over to the Commonwealth. There is no
distinction between the two cases. That is a very dangerous position of supremacy in
which to put the Commonwealth. It practically has this effect, in that very wide and
nebulous area where the sovereign, [start page 2270] rights of the state and the rights we
wish to hand over to the Commonwealth come into collision, without any sort of
consideration to the rights or the wrongs, the law of the states as to its sovereign powers
must go down. If we intend that, well and good. But if it is inserted in the Constitution I
can conceive a very great handle being made of it by those who would say that we have
to leave independence to the states in connexion with every subject not handed over to
the Commonwealth, and that, while affecting to do that, we practically put the states in
great danger, because their laws made within their sovereign powers may happen to
come into collision with the Commonwealth law.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Would not that contention be involved in the interpretation of clause


99?
Mr. REID.-That is where it seems to me the difficulty would come in. In a clause
before 101, which in my copy of the Bill appears as clause 103, it saves the Constitution
of the states in respect of all matters not handed over to the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Chapter 0003 Page 2


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 3

.
Obviously you need properly trained judges at the High Court of Australia to be able to competently
adjudicate on constitutional matters and not as previously occurred a judge refusing to hand down a
decision upon the basis that he didn’t know the constitutional issue and by this the appeal was lost 3
judges for and 3 judges against the appeal.
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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
.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge
under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from
Parliament or Government.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.


Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same
sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will
have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the
inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that no
judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know
exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in
biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be
dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
.
The constitution provides specific legislative powers and again “EXTERNAL AFFAIRS” can only
be used in relation to this and anything else beyond it cannot somehow create additional legislative
powers. Fancy the Commonwealth of Australia to make a treaty with some country that every
Australian shall display in its backyard a flag of the USA! Now, the Commonwealth of Australia
may pursue such a treaty but reality is this doesn’t give the Commonwealth of Australia then
additional legislative powers to enforce this kind of nonsense as the Framers of the Constitution
made clear:
.
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs,
among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign
countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could
only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the
Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for
and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
.
As such, unless the Commonwealth already had existing legislative powers to legislate and by this
can enforce any treaty it enters into by legislation the treaties themselves cannot create legislative
powers and for this the Franklin Dam issue in the 1992 Tasmania Dam case was clearly ill
conceived.

Chapter 0003 Page 3


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 4

.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member
is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out
that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had
another motive.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case
the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special
court, but the general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to
do is to prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.

[start page 2004]

Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.


END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
" I say it ought to be upset at once and at the very earliest point. As soon as ever you find
it has gone beyond the bounds you ought to say-"This thing is illegal." Otherwise you
will leave to the Ministry of the day these powers of which you are so careful, giving
them to a majority of the States and to a majority of the people. You would allow the
Ministry of the day to exercise a suspending power as to whether it would enforce a law
or not, which is most dangerous.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a
proposed law has to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or
a member of the Executive to call attention to any infraction or infringement of the

Chapter 0003 Page 4


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 5

Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members of the House of Representatives to
insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it only requires one
solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal
interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call
the attention of the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the
Constitution for that proposed law to be ruled out of order. It does not require a
majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed, because a majority
of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither House could pass the
standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or
President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power
to either House to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Much is argued about the Sue v Hill issue and that the States referred powers to the commonwealth
and that by this British subjects are aliens, etc, but it must be clear that as set out below not only are
Australians still British nationals and are so because of being born in the realm of the Queen
(http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER
377) but more over the States cannot even amend their own constitutions without a State
Referendum by the State electors to approve of this. As such, the application of s.51.xxxvii) can
only eventuate is the State before referring legislative powers had already the approval of State
electors by State referendum to do so. This is something I understand the High Court of Australia
never considered appropriately. What this also means is that the purported Australia Act came about
in an unconstitutional manner and the British version neither was constitutionally valid as it relies
upon the validity of the Westminster Act which was actually not applicable to the Commonwealth
of Australia, regardless the British parliament intended to do so, because it applies as if the
Commonwealth of Australia was a “DOMINION” which clearly the Commonwealth of Australia
never was or is.
.
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 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 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
.
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."

Chapter 0003 Page 5


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 6

END QUOTE
.
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.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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
.
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
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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
.
In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p
725 of ER)):
QUOTE
(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons
natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.

Chapter 0003 Page 6


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 7

END QUOTE
.
It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British
subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial
authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I
am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual
citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.”
.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DIBBS: The hon. member proposed to take from us, as British subjects, the
chartered right which we possess of appeal to the Crown.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come
under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not
also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such
discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it
is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two
men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is
a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is
meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of
the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That
does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to
the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on
the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be
exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the
citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it,
and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be
a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the
Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of
depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than
£1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of
Parliament.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?


Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest
this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of
a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have
no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to
one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
.
The High Court of Australia is bound by the terms of the constitution and has no constitutional
powers to purport to adjudicate as it did in Sue v Hill and the Framers of the Constitution made this
very clear also that neither the parliament, any parliament, or the Courts were above the

Chapter 0003 Page 7


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 8

constitution. As the judges were all admitted to the Bar pledging allegiance to the British Crown
and were sworn in to their office likewise then they were in no position to claim some Queen of
Australia as the Commonwealth of Australia clearly never was nor is a Monarchy but a
“POLITICAL UNION”
.
http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html
QUOTE Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377
4. And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it hath
been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at the time
of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were
born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the [7-Coke-27 b] uniting of
the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crown to which he
was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God of his infinite
goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by several Kings; yet
it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the
realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no
aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of
the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural
subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.
END QUOTE Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377
.
To argue that somehow mysteriously people’s allegiances changed over time from one Queen to
another is to hold that all we need is the High Court of Australia to declare we are all now under the
Queen of Sheba and of we all go shipped out being aliens.
.
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

Chapter 0003 Page 8


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 9

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
.
The High Court of Australia simply has no judicial powers to declare something that denies all
natural born Australians of their birthrights to be British nationals known as Australians. Neither to
interfere with the naturalization of aliens to be British nationals as the commonwealth could only
naturalise upon the authority of the British Parliament. As such to change the application of this the
British Parliament has to enact an amendment constitution Act to amend The Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but then had the problem that this could not be successful in
any event because s.128 only permits amendment of the constitution by the electors themselves!
.
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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

Chapter 0003 Page 9


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 10

"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.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-
and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for
the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get
£100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our
schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could
complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the
amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree?
Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not
leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect,
and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
.
The Hansard records are very critical to the proper interpretation of the constitution as to the true
intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and judges simply lack the time to extensively research
this albeit this is no excuse as after all they take on the job and should then be prepared to research
it appropriately.
.
Hansard 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-The Drafting Committee could not interpret the
intentions of the Convention, excepting in so far as they found them expressed in the Bill,
in the amendments, or in the debates. We have endeavoured to give effect simply to what
the Convention have said and done.
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 too much care
has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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

Chapter 0003 Page 10


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 11

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 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 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
.
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
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to
the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that
we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power
over us.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative
power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is
necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Chapter 0003 Page 11


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 12

QUOTE
start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that if
we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted
which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws over which
the states are to be supreme even under federation.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above
and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing
under the constitution.
END QUOTE
And
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 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 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 such authority.
END QUOTE
And
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details of
the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this
Convention to decide that the power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the
several states. At present the legislatures of the various colonies can only be altered with
the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that shall remain? When we
have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal legislature, is it
intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their constitutions at will or
not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by the hon. member, Sir
George Grey, is decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the power to lay down a
general rule, without touching the details of any individual constitution, that the various states
should have the power of framing their own constitutions according to the will of the
majority of the people of those states.
END QUOTE

Chapter 0003 Page 12


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 13

.
Again (RE Section 123);
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478]
enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own
form of state constitution.
END QUOTE
Hence, for example the amended Victorian Constitution Act 1975 never having been placed before
the State electors as to be vetoed or approved is not constitutionally valid and like so amended
constitutions such as in regard of the NSW purported 1902 Local Government or the Queensland
1921 abolition of its Upper House. And again, the reference of legislative powers to the
Commonwealth always includes an amendment of the State constitution because it is a transfer of
legislative powers and as such minimise the State constitutional powers and hence can only be
validly exercised if the State first obtained approval by State referendum.
.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times
you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and
it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should
be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has
come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the
law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary
revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question
whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal
legislation takes place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing
the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such
power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having
appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not
be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one
well worthy of the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to
which he has drawn attention could be obviated by some such provision as that which he
suggested. But this matter has struck me also from another point of view, and it seems to
me that the provision affords an easy method of amending the Federal Constitution,
without referring such amendments to the people of the various states for their assent.
Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the Federal Parliament,
and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a federal law, and cannot
afterwards be repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one position, and in that
case, of course, the reference once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time, and
cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it becomes an amendment of the states'
Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal Constitution without the consent
of the people of the various states. On the other hand, if that be not so, and the states
can, after making such reference, repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a
constant state of change-no guarantee for continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and

Chapter 0003 Page 13


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 14

this might lead to a great deal of confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My
principal objection to the provision is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the
Federal Constitution without such amendments being carried into effect in the manner
provided by this Constitution.

Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the


Federal Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
You find that States don’t have a clue how this applies as in the Commonwealth Powers (Family
Law---Children) Act 1986 it states:
QUOTE
. Termination of reference
s. 4
The Governor in Council may, at any time, by proclamation published in the Government
Gazette, fix a day as the day on which the reference under this Act shall terminate.
END QUOTE
.
Clearly the State cannot terminate commonwealth legislative powers once enacted
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it becomes an
amendment of the states' Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
And then consider also;
HANSARD 10-03 -1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no
longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent
bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to
have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament
being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is
split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference:
When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of
parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers,
legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
QUOTE
.
Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to
refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but,
indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and state
interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted,
a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all time to be
determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not

Chapter 0003 Page 14


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 15

state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by
a national referendum.
END QUOTE
.
It must therefore be clear that any purported reference of legislative powers from the states to the
Commonwealth of Australia never validly was enacted where there was no prior State referendum
to authorize this, as each reference of legislative power effectively is an amendment of the State
constitution as it permanently removed a certain legislative power to which the reference of
legislative powers refer to. And more over the reference of legislative powers is limited to some but
not all states (As the Framers of the Constitution made clear during the debates) and therefore any
reference of legislative powers purportedly done by all States would be unconstitutional and
remains for this also without legal force.
.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of
the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot
be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
.
This too is a warning that whatever may be applicable in other countries, even in New Zealand and
Canada because of having a different constitutional structure may not apply to the Commonwealth
of Australia as it is merely as like the EUROPEAN UNION a POLITICAL UNION!
.
In the next “Chapter 0004 Commonwealth v State legislative powers - etc” we deal with the
issue of divided powers more extensively but lets not overlook “Chapter 007A The Great
Deception” in the publication of;
.
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)
.
QUOTE “Chapter 007A The Great Deception”
Chapter 007A The Great Deception
.
* Gary, “The Great Deception” by whom?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, just read the Chapter 034T of the book (published on 17-3-
2007);

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS


For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6 was ISBN 0-9751760-4-3
.
QUOTE Chapter 034T
Gary, The Great Deception?
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, this document also sets out how the judges of the High Court of
Australia are deceiving us as to the application of the Constitution! It is to be read in conjunction

Chapter 0003 Page 15


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 16

with other documents such as “Is our Constitution safe”, “The Constitution is a PERPETUAL
LEASE”, etc.
Anyhow, I quote below the document “The Great Deception”;
.
The Great Deception
QUOTE
I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert
totally from the legal principles that are embedded in the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
In my 2-8-2003 correspondence, published previously in my book (30 September 2003);
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

I included the following, in regard of the issue of the detention of David Hicks;
.
QUOTE
http://store.yahoo.com/4crests/magnacarta.html
When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to
the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual
debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land,"
just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.

This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and the sixth states

. . . the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. Written 575 years earlier,
Magna Carta declares

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, . . . or in any other way destroyed . . . except by the lawful judgment of
his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice. In
1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna
Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede. Yet, as close as Magna Carta and
American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by
a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We
the People."
END QUOTE
.
Magna Carta
QUOTE
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or
deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so,
except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
.
(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm
and are minded to keep it well.
.
(49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or
for loyal service.

Chapter 0003 Page 16


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 17

(51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their
attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.
.
(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom,
and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed
in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:
END QUOTE
.
It is clear that the above stated applies “forever”. Since then the US Supreme Court handed down
its decision that the Magna Charta does apply to the US Constitution.
Lets now consider what the High Court of Australia stated in;
Transcript of High Court Appeal
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)
McHUGH J: But is not the problem you face that the Magna Carta and the Bill of
Rights of 1688 are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way the
Constitution is binding on those legislatures? Any legislature acting within the powers allotted
to it by the Constitution is entitled to legislate in total disregard of the Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights, as is the United Kingdom Parliament. Take the situation in Northern Ireland.
They abolished trial by jury in Northern Ireland. If you go back to Magna Carta which, I
suppose, is really the heart of your argument, it is really more a statement of political ideals.
They are not constitutional documents in the sense that the Australian Constitution and the
United States Constitution are.
END QUOTE
.
Well, the US Supreme Court has (since the publication of my book on 30-9-2003) clearly ruled that
the Magna Charta is applicable to the US constitution. Now, lets see what the Framers of the
Constitution stated during the Constitution Convention Debates;
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford
their protection to every citizen.

Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.

Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?


Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration
of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration
of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried
it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a
declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not
only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is also necessary for
the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State.

Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.


Mr. OCONNOR.-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by
any state if it chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of

Chapter 0003 Page 17


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 18

offences, or particular class of persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects of
some wild impulse on the part of a majority of the community, and unjust laws were
passed-
Mr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not
necessary to refer to.

Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna


Charta?

Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution?

Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by an


Act of the Federal Parliament?

Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the
Constitution of the states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact
any laws which it thought fit, and even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna
Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only dealing with a possibility, but at the
same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might, would be very disastrous,
and there is no reason why we should not prevent it.
[start page 684]

Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate.


END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I am now speaking of the English law. It has been somewhat modified in the
Straits Settlements, and in one or two other parts of the empire, I believe, by giving a right of
action for tort in certain cases, but I do not think that this extended right of action has ever
been given in any of the colonies. Conditions justifying actions for damages against the
Crown, however, are almost as frequent as actions for breach of contract. In Canada a man
sued the Crown for damages received in connexion with a railway accident, but he was
debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect in the
railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen
in the case I have already mentioned, that-
Where the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of
the Crown, and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be
obtained, compensation in money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods
supplied to the Crown or to the public service-the Crown is bound to refer a petition of
right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice
cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rights of action are given to the
subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim against another
subject.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

Chapter 0003 Page 18


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 19

END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not
intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution
which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this
momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to
the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this
new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing
of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question
upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter
was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna
Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed.
END QUOTE
.
Therefore it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that the Magna Charta applied
to the Constitution and it is not for the judges to then seek to amend the Constitution by their own
judgment to deny this to be applicable.
.
As much as the Magna Charta is applicable likewise so the Bill of Rights.
.
There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;
.
QUOTE Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) HCA
GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of
expansion, not contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation.
McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect
whatever, and that is the doctrine of this Court. We do not make a decision as to whether the
law is for the peace, for the order, for the good government. It is assumed that if
Parliament makes it, it is, and the real question is, is it a law with the same respect to trade
and commerce in other countries or whatever the relevant law of Parliament relies on, but
this Court has never attempted to say that a law, on the subject of trade and commerce, for
example, is not "for peace, order and good government". It is, in effect, a parliamentary
expression rather than a legal expression. It does not limit Parliament's power; it is said to
expand them.
MR ESSENBERG: I am not really sure I understand that.
END QUOTE
.
Now lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated, as set out more extensive in the document
“for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc” in Chapter 034O
.
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Chapter 0003 Page 19


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 20

QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I agree that these words appear rather startling. [start page 559]
They are taken from the Federal Council Act of Australasia, and were inserted by the
imperial authorities after consideration and in substitution for more limited words that were
proposed by the Convention that met here in 1883. Finding those words there, and
considering that the powers of the federal parliament are only to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to adopt
them.

Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that if a ship leaves one of the Australian colonies for a
British port, say London, having a British register, until she actually arrives in Great
Britain, the laws of the commonwealth are binding upon her, and not the laws of Great
Britain?

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the
peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her
voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such
provisions as are essential for the laws of the commonwealth outside the 3-mile limit
could possibly apply.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the
only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
That was the Convention which had, I think, to be called in consequence of the New Guinea
affair. Sir Samuel went on:
Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the Federal Parliament
are only to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth,
it was thought perfectly safe to adopt them.
Sir Samuel Griffith's reply to that interjection was;

No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good
government of the Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was
necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of
the Commonwealth outside the three-mile limit could possibly apply.
That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly
affect any law of the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as
they are not in conflict they will be applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of
those laws of the Commonwealth which it is necessary to have enforced.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania:

Omit the words "for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, lines 3, 4, and 5."

Chapter 0003 Page 20


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 21

The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: This is an amendment which was made in the legislature of
Tasmania at the instance of the Hon. A.I. Clark. That gentleman has furnished these reasons for the amendment,
and, perhaps, in justice to him, I ought to read them:

These words are copied from the several acts of the Imperial Parliament providing for the establishment of
legislatures in the various Australian colonies, and are perfectly appropriate when used in reference to the
establishment of the legislature which is to possess plenary legislative powers, and have unlimited jurisdiction on
all questions relating to the protection of life and property, and the enforcement of contractual rights of every
kind; but it is very doubtful if they ought to find a place in connection with the definition and delegation of
limited legislative powers which do not include matters relating to the daily protection of life and property, or to
enforcement of private rights and obligations in general. It is true that they find a place in the 91st section of the
British North America Act, which establishes a federal convention for Canada; but the primary object of that act
is to limit the powers and jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and to vest the residuum of legislative
authority in the Dominion of Canada in the federal parliament. The words in question may, therefore, fitly find a
place in that act, and they were relied upon in the case of "The Attorney-General of Canada versus the Attorney-
General of Ontario, which was decided by the Privy Council last year[L.R.A.C. 1896] to uphold the act of the
Dominion Parliament, which had been challenged on the ground that it had encroached upon the domain of the
provincial legislatures. That decision, in its effect, appears to me to be, an argument against the insertion of the
words in question in connection with the definition and delegation of the legislative powers of the parliament of
the commonwealth, because they might, in some unforeseen and unexpected controversy, afford ground for an
argument in favour of the jurisdiction of the parliament of the commonwealth in matters which the several states
might claim to be wholly within their own legislative powers. It cannot be contended that they are required for
the purpose of giving the parliament of the commonwealth full power to legislate with regard to all the subjects
mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52; and, if they are not required for that purpose, they must inevitably
encourage the contention that they are inserted [start page 1037] for some additional purpose. But, if their
insertion in not intended to add in any way to the powers of parliament, in relation to the matters mentioned in
the sub-sections of section 52, then they violate the canon of drafting, which requires that no unnecessary words
should be used in giving expression to the intention of the legislature. They are very properly inserted in section
53, because that section confers upon the parliament of the commonwealth plenary and exclusive powers in
regard to the several matters mentioned in the sub-section of that section. But their presence in section 52 tends
to create a resemblance in the scope of the powers conferred by the two sections, whereas it would be much
more desirable to make the difference in the purport of each section as apparent and emphatic as possible.

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 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.

Chapter 0003 Page 21


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 22

The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the
Drafting Committee.
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE
Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order,
and good government
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 13x-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-The Parliament has by clause 52 full power and authority to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to a large number of matters that are set
out. This is a power that is without limitation.
END QUOTE
.
It should be understood that while it was stated;
This is a power that is without limitation.
It is within the limits of being for for the peace, order, and good government!
As such as long as it is within the scope of “for the peace, order, and good government” the
legislative powers is unlimited.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty
and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is
enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for
the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into any
detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in framing.
But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this
Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are
about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of
nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon
which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons
of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
.
In my view judges such as Gummow J and McHugh J ought to have a retraining as to what is
constitutionally appropriate as I do not believe they have a clue what is applicable. Again, the
document “for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc” has extensively set out
how it was being used, including some opposition and a submission from Tasmania to have it taken
out as there should be an unlimited power, but it was made clear, that unlimited power would exist
within the confines of laws being for the “order, peace and good government” and in the end this
was retained in the Constitution! I for one wonder how on earth judges of the High Court of
Australia do not comprehend this!
I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally
from the legal principles that are embedded in the Constitution.
END QUOTE Chapter
END QUOTE “Chapter 007A The Great Deception”

Chapter 0003 Page 22


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 23

.
And also we have to consider then “Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY
KILLED” of the same book that sets out:
.
QUOTE “Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED”
Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
* Gary, what is your view about McHugh’s statement ?
.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, how can anyone put the Court in disrepute when you have such
idiotic statement of a judge. Well, I have put my bit on the Internet about it.
In my view considering that statement the parliament should have moved to have him removed
from the bench as soon as he made that statement.
If this is the kind of mentality and intelligence that we can expect from judges of the High Court of
Australia then I think we might as well appoint one of my grandchildren to the bench and at least
they be rather playing with toys and crayons and say nothing sensible then the utter rubbish that we
now had. And this kind of intelligence, or the lack thereof, is used to deal with constitutional
matters, no wonder wee are going downhill!
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
QUOTE 070520 posting
I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;

QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and
the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said,
some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE

As a "constitutionalist" (not some lawyer who is brainwashed) I condemn any one, in particularly judges, to
undermine the constitutional system that exist in the POLITICAL UNION BEING THE Commonwealth of
Australia.

The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is created by Statue and itself has no common law.
Hence, any jury that were to be involved in federal hearings must be drawn from a State.

As author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books in regard of constitutional and other matters I have set out
extensively how I succeeded and defeated Federal Government lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all
constitutional issues I raised!

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was an act to create a "APOLITICAL UNION"
and the States who partly federated retaining all legislative powers regarding "CIVIL RIGHTS" as it was their
constitutions that were based upon the provisions of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas corpus, etc.

In the Commonwealth of Australia, judges are appointed to the High Court of Australia regardless lacking any
competence in constitutional matters, in fact they may never have practiced in constitutional matters, and in one
incident a judge actually refused to hand down a judgment other then to state he didn't have any knowledge in the
constitutional matter before the court and for this would abstain from handing down a judgment.

You find it as a matter of record that where the Governor-General was Defendant in a case before the High Court
of Australia then all 7 judges subsequently fraternised with the governor-General, and no one has to be surprised
the Court subsequently refused to allow the case to be heard upon its MERITS.

In the Commonwealth of Australia judges are purportedly appointed by the Governor-General but he merely
appoints those who the Government provides to be appointed. Hence a political stacking occurs.

The High Court of Australia in 1996 using their powers as a "persona designata" to make decisions for the

Chapter 0003 Page 23


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 24

parliament, approved of the entire constitution to be replaced by the Australia act 1986 (forget about it being
constitutionally valid) so that there no longer is a "constitutional Parliament" but the parliament now is above the
constitution. As it now legislated the (purported) constitution.

But, I successfully challenged this validity of this De Facto Constitution in Court.

Having myself served in the NATO at the then IRON CURAIN having been trained as a sharpshooter, I
personally deplore the usage of weapons, as I am trained to use it to kill. However, I recognise the right of others
to bear arms, for defending their rights, and even the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) indicated that militia
could be drawn from civilians of a State after the federation was created. This to me implied that the
commonwealth of Australia would have been able to enlist armed civilians to serve at that time to protect the
shores of the Commonwealth of Australia until it could set up its own defence force.

There are always terrible incidents involving firearms that stand out. Likewise there are also terrible incidents
where motor vehicles are standing out in having resulted to mass killings.

Personally, I would prefer not a single person to have a firearm, but then I have to recognise that others may
desire that everyone should have a weapon to defend himself/herself.

My wife, opposed me to even fit a knife sharpers on the kitchen wall, but wanted me to hide it in a pantry, as she
fears that someone might come in the residence and see the knives and use it wrongly.

Surely, we are not going to ban all knives in the world?

When anyone desires to exercise a right then the person must also accept there are obligations.

Hence regulations as to the storage, handling and usage of a firearm should be deemed to be appropriate where it
provides for what is locally required.

Therefore, while a person may have the right to own a firearm, the Parliament rightfully could legislate to have
the usage, carrying, etc made subject to conditions.

Where there is a constitutional right, implied or otherwise, that a person may bear arms to defend himself then I
view one cannot limit the usage of a weapon to be some small handgun, a tank, or a warplane, as depending what
your personal conditions are you may need one or another, without having any intention to use it against other
civilians.

The Supreme Court (USA) has extensively decided cases regarding infringements of RELIGION and I for one
admire the Courts numerous judgments I read. If the same kind of logic was used regarding the right to bear
arms, then I view likewise both parliamentarians and civilians should accept this kind of reasoning.

I for one do not desire to use a weapon, do not like them being used, but that are my personal views, and I
recognise others have total opposite views. They have their right on their opinion as much as I have and as such I
view that the concentration should not be as to how to make inroads to the rights of others, but rather how can we
facilitate the rights of others without that our own rights (including that of personal safety, as not to be held up by
some crazy gunman) jeopardised needlessly.

In particular those of the law enforcement who are risking their lives daily to protect innocent citizens of harm
they must not unduly be jeopardised in their law enforcement positions because inappropriate regulations allow
anyone to obtain a weapon.

While many people argue about the right of freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, few do actually
concentrate on the issue of right of freedom of travel, even so this likewise was protected by old English law.

Not to many people argue that their right to travel is denied where they must first have a driving licence to drive
a motor vehicle, where as no kind of driving licence existed to drive a cart-and-wagon. As such, somehow we
have accepted inroads to our guaranteed freedoms because society allowed for this where as in regard of
weapons we may have different positions pending the local society we reside in.

In my view, the right to legislate that a person should not be allowed to bear arms cannot be justified on a court
decision, as if the freedom to bear arms is guaranteed then I view not a court in the land could possible make an
order contrary to it.

Chapter 0003 Page 24


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 25

We therefore may have to look at the constitutional framework as to what was existing at the time each
constitution was created and if the conditions then existed that a Court could actually have denied a person to
bear arms. If in history it can be shown that certain persons were denied by the local authorities to bear arms,
then it must be accepted that the Constitution albeit if it provides for the right to bear arms then was created upon
the understanding that such implied freedom was at all times deemed to be subject to court judicial decisions and
or legislative powers.

As a "constitutionalist" I find it laughable how judges, despite their extensive legal training, can come up with
such utter and sheer nonsense such as McHugh J did with his statement ;

QUOTE

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some
authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE

As no such constitutional system operates that would allow the parliament to enact such laws.

And there I have to come back upon the other quotation;

QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and
the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

Lawyers are being trained in legal studies by other lawyers and as such are brainwashed far to often that some
LEGAL FICTION is FLEGAL REALITY>

As I exposed in my book published on 30 September 2003

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN 0-9580569-6-X (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

There is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare "citizenship" as


Australians are constitutionally "subjects of the British Crown". Citizenship is a "POLITICAL POSITION" of
rights, including franchise, and has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" yet the High Court of Australia
goes on as if it is a nationality.

In court, on 19 July 2006, I defeated the Federal Government lawyers also on this matter.

Hence, having has a legal study and having obtained law degrees in itself will not prove you are not brainwashed
by LEGAL FICTION but more then likely you are.

Hence, the work as a constitutionalist is to expose this.

Only when we are dealing with LEGAL REALITY and have appropriately explored the constitutional basis
upon which constitutional rights, implied or otherwise, were provided for in the constitution can we commence to
address the issues such as the right to bear arms, etc.

And to make clear, no Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any legislative powers to allow the
killing of blue-eyed babies or for such kind of nonsense, as none of the State constitutions could allow for such
legislative nonsense as they are all bound to make laws for "the peace, order, and good government", even so
judges likewise fails to recognise this constitutional limitation.

As the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear the Constitution was the "new Magna Carta".
END QUOTE 070520 posting
.
The danger is that if some fanatical religion were to come to power in Australia it could in fact rely
upon these and other stupid and irresponsible statements of the High Court of Australia and turn
this Commonwealth of Australia into some murderous regime, to pursue “ethnic cleansing” and

Chapter 0003 Page 25


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 26

fund their religious schools at taxpayers expenses. Whatever may suit to today for the so-called
Judeo-Christians may tomorrow suit another fanatical religion to achieve precisely the opposite!
This is what we should keep in mind, and why the Framers of the Constitution so much sought to
prevent this kind of religious war to exist in the Commonwealth of Australia.
END QUOTE “Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED”
.
* What I understand from this all is that the States are limited as to legislation as much as the
Commonwealth of Australia to “peace, order and good government”, is that it?”
.
**#** Obviously where s.51 contains legislative powers that the States could exercise until the
Commonwealth of Australia began to exercise its legislative powers then clearly where this power
is limited to “peace, order and good government” then it doesn’t just apply to the Commonwealth
but likewise to the States. And this also applies to;
.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or
person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has
power to make laws;
END QUOTE
.
Meaning that the states acquiring property like wise are bound to do so by just terms, as you cannot
have that the Commonwealth of Australia is bound by “peace, order and good government” while
the states can disregard this. It also means that States must compensate by “just terms” for example
farmers for any intrusion of their farming. Such as a prohibition to clear their land, etc must
likewise result in a “just” compensation as it interferes with the FEE SIMPLE rights also. Not to
allow for this would mean that a State could acquire the properly of a farmer for next to nothing (
forcing by conditions the land owner of the land) and then sell it to the Commonwealth on “just
terms” and that clearly was not the intention of the Framers of the Constitution.
.
Do keep in mind:
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
106 Saving of Constitutions
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
Constitution of the State.
END QUOTE
.
Therefore, all State legislatives powers must be considered in line to constitutional provisions and
this includes legal principles embedded in the constitution as those expressed by the delegates as
Framers of the Constitution during the Constitution Convention Debates.
.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and
secure to him.
END QUOTE

Chapter 0003 Page 26


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 27

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.

[start page 192]


END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
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 subject-matter of them, it can do so.
END QUOTE
.
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
.
Contrary to the 14 November 2006 so called WorkChoices legislation judgment of the High Court
of Australia the truth is that the Commonwealth has no constitutional legislative powers to interfere
with industrial life within a State and s.51 (xx) cannot circumvent this because the Framers of the
Constitution made this very clear.
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights
of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law, there is in
Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States, page 215, this statement-

Due process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property
of persons must be by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the
settled course of judicial proceedings, and this is regulated by the law of the state.

Chapter 0003 Page 27


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 28

If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the
parties-

Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.

Mr. ISAACS.-What is the good of it? It is an admission that it is necessary.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Surely we are not to be prevented from enacting a guarantee of freedom


in our Constitution simply because imputations may be cast upon us that it is necessary. We
do not say that it is necessary. All we say is that no state shall be allowed to pass these laws.

Mr. ISAACS.-Who asks for the guarantee?

Dr. COCKBURN.-The only country in which the guarantee exists is that in which its
provisions are most frequently violated.

Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state
has to do only with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating
now a new and a larger citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of
the citizens of the Commonwealth, and we should take care that no man is deprived of life,
liberty, or property, except by due process of law.
END QUOTE
.
* With Francis James Colosimo was that not “due process of law”
.
**#** Absolutely not because as was stated “Due process of law does not imply that all trials in
the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury.” What this means is that you
cannot interfere with the rights of a property owner unless it is in a state court!
The same with the State legislation as it purports that somehow its own organ, a tribunal, can
without Due process of law purports to rob a citizen of his “CIVIL RIGHTS” such as in the
Francis James Colosimo case without any trial before a State Court.
What we have therefore is that neither the Commonwealth or the State governments can interfere
with the “CIVIL RIGHTS” of a citizen and only by a “State court” can a judicial determination
be made as to if the “CIVIL RIGHTS” of a person should be limited.
.
QUOTE 21-1-2009 correspondence of State Trustees Limited

The Tribunal's Order dated 29 October 2008, clause 6 states:

"The administrator is to restrict intervention to areas necessary to achieve


resolution of issues related to disputes with the Moorabool Shire Council
concerning overdue rates; and to matters relating to planning permits and
associated issues which are before VCAT".
END QUOTE
.
What we have here is that for purposes suiting the State government organs the Tribunal declared
that he needed to be under administration by another organ State Trustees Limited but for all other
matters Mr Francis James Colosimo was not deemed needing to be under Administration, to pay the
state organ Moorabool Shire Council in total disregard of Mr Francis James Colosimo’s
constitutional rights and objections. This in my view is a very serious attack upon all Victorian’s
civil rights and no fair dinkum judge could allow this to be condoned. Indeed the High court of

Chapter 0003 Page 28


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 29

Australia must ensure that this kind of serious inroads to the legal principles embedded in the
constitution is not permitted to continue and/or to flourish. What the State of Victoria has
effectively done is hijack the civil rights of Victorians, not just Mr Francis James Colosimo and
made clear it substitutes the right of having a trial before a State court to deny a person’s civil
rights by that of having instead a tribunal like VCAT (a State government organ also) determining
civil rights and so flouting the separation of judicial powers and the executive powers. Indeed, we
have seen how VCAT disregard the proper application of the RULE OF LAW and with a total
disregard persist also in holding not jut one, not jut two, not just three, not just four, not just five but
a total of six (6) CONTEMPT hearings and so using a sitting judge of the County Court of Victoria
so to say as some stooge (persona designata) to adjudicate in VCAT but at times holding the
hearings in the County Court of Victoria as deceiving a person as if they are County Court of
Victoria proceedings, and in gross violation of the judge to be and remain impartial, in a manner of
that outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT. (See also Imperial Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic)).
In this case, I proved to Her Honour Harbison J on 16 March 2009 that Moorabool Shire Council
by its own 17 January 2007 statement had acknowledged that Mr Francis James Colosimo build his
“outbuilding” (SHED) lawfully and it was not then for the tribunal (VCAT) to fabricate there was a
“second dwelling” where none of the documentation that was before the tribunal claimed this to be
so but was merely as to serve the tribunal to deceptively and wilfully rob Mr Francis James
Colosimo of his civil rights and so his FEE SIMPLE rights also.
Her Honour Harbison J on 16 March 2009 ordered the proceedings to be PERMANENTLY
STAYED because I exposed the gross deception in the evidence.
.
Transcript 29-5-2008 Her Honour Harbison J
QUOTE
HER HONOUR : All right. Mr Colosimo, I will allow Mr Higgins to present the case for you,
but I want to make sure that you understand that it’s your case, because you are the
person who has been charged with contempt. You are the person who may go to
goal if you’re found guilty of contempt
END QUOTE
.
As Mr Francis James Colosimo to my findings was never formally charged then let Her
Honour Harbison J prove she did so during any of the 6 purported CONTEMPT hearing!
In my view this was judicial terrorism upon Mr Francis James Colosimo totally uncalled for.
.
It may be noticed that the 16 March 2009 transcript in the CONTEMPT proceedings before Her
Honour Harbison J when I was assisting Mr Francis James Colosimo, sets out the following;
(Do note the error in my surname spelling, (SHOREL-HLAVKIA should be; Schorel-Hlavka)
QUOTE Transcript 16 March 2009-03-30 QUOTE
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : first of all, I’m not a lawyer. I‘ve no legal training. I’m a
constitutionalist. That means I deal with matters on constitutional matters mainly.
HER HONOUR : All right. Do you have some – you don’t have any legal training?
MR SHOREL-HLAVKIA : Absolutely not.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE 25-1-2010 email received from Sylvia.Szepietowska@justice.vic.gov.au G54449- Colosimo
From: Sylvia.Szepietowska@justice.vic.gov.au
<sylvia.szepietowska@justice.vic.gov.au>
To: schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
Cc:
Date: Monday, January 25, 2010 02:26 pm
Subject: G54449- Colosimo
Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)

Chapter 0003 Page 29


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 30

Notice of Hearing.pdf (87KB)

Dear Mr Schorel- Hlavka,

Please find attached for your information, a copy of a notice of hearing with respect to the
above matter.

Please do not hesitate to contact our customer service team on 9628 9911 if you have any
queries.

Kind regards

Sylvia Szepietowska
Team Leader
Professional Team
Human Rights Division
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
___________________________________________________________________________
_________________________
55 King Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000. Ph: (03) 9628 9834 Fax: (03) 9628 9932
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL


The content of this e-mail and any attachments may be private and
confidential, intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message you must not read, forward,
print, copy, disclose, use or store in any way the information this e-mail or
any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and delete or destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.
Our organisation respects the privacy of individuals. For a copy of our
privacy policy please go to our website or contact us.
END QUOTE 25-1-2010 email received from Sylvia.Szepietowska@justice.vic.gov.au G54449- Colosimo
.
Within s.62 of the VCAATA I am entitled to represent Mr Francis James Colosimo;
QUOTE vcaata1998428
62 Representation of parties
(1) In any proceeding a party—
(a) may appear personally; or
(b) may be represented by a professional advocate if—
(i) the party is a person referred to in subsection (2); or
(ii) another party to the proceeding is a professional advocate; or
(iii) another party to the proceeding who is permitted under this section to be
represented by a professional advocate is so represented; or
(iv) all the parties to the proceeding agree; or

Chapter 0003 Page 30


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 31

(c) may be represented by any person (including a professional advocate)


permitted or specified by the Tribunal.
END QUOTE vcaata1998428
.
The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context:
QUOTE
A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be
observed if a valid law is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be
repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the process prescribed by it must be followed.
That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole of what is prescribed by
section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say that
some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are
not. The section describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another
- and only the completion of the entire process can produce a valid law.

(Supra at 262)
END QUOTE
.
By the RULE OF LAW I am therefore entitled to “represent” Mr Francis James Colosimo and
Senior Member of VCAT Ms Preuss made clear on 27 January 2010 that it was sufficient for
VCAT to notify me only and not Mr Francis James Colosimo as I was representing him (while prior
to that I maintained to “assist”) only then during the hearing to claim that I could not act as the
Attorney because I was not a legal practitioner. This where she without legal justification had
ordered a year earlier that Mr Francis James Colosimo couldn’t appoint an Enduring Power of
Attorney (albeit refusing to deal with the then OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION and as such
never invoked jurisdiction in the first place, and maintained this all along despite evidence filed by
the office of the Public Advocate that expert witnesses held Mr Francis James Colosimo was
competent to authorise an Enduring Power of Attorney. It was to me very obvious that this was
some kind of unconstitutional legal trickery as to try to maintain administration orders as to use an
excise for the need of this as if Mr Francis James Colosimo was to appoint me as Enduring power
of Attorney and the issues with Moorabool Shire Council were to have been resolved in a lawful
manner then VCAT no longer could persist in trying to seel the property of Mr Francis James
Colosimo and to cover up its wrongdoing, etc.
Still, as the 27-1-2009 orders were without jurisdiction they could therefore not prevent Mr Francis
James Colosimo to appoint me as his Attorney and he clearly stated having done so during the 27
January 2010 hearing. So Ms Preuss then simply refused to accept for me to conduct matters as I
deemed was in law permissible and then tried Mr Francis James Colosimo to choose between
aborting the re-view and the re assessment without explaining his legal rights and indeed how
severely it could undermine his legal rights and his legal position. And when I submitted for a
temporary adjournment to explain it to Mr Francis James Colosimo she refused to allow for this.
.
QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304

61. Reassessment
(1) The Tribunal must conduct a reassessment of a guardianship order or an
administration order—
(a) within 12 months after making the order, unless the Tribunal orders
otherwise; and
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.

Chapter 0003 Page 31


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 32

QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304


63. Order after reassessment
(1) Upon completing a reassessment the Tribunal may by order amend, vary,
continue or replace the order subject to any conditions or requirements it considers
necessary or revoke the order
END QUOTE GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986-gaaa1986304
.
Because there has been a total failure by Ms Preuss to apply the reassessment and she had without
legal justification protracted the litigation in an attempt for the Office of the Public Advocate to
obtain evidence against Mr Francis James Colosimo she obviously tried to cover up this also. Again
a disregard to the RULE OF LAW. And, when then by way of 19 January 2010 correspondence I
had set out that there was no evidence on foot against Mr Francis James Colosimo as the evidence
obtained by the Office of the Public Advocate was obtained by deception, etc, then Ms Preuss
ordered an URGENT directions hearing for 27 January 2010 where the trial dates were for 1 and 2
February 2010 )upon my submission on 27 January 2010 then aborted) and then used coercion that
if Mr Francis James Colosimo didn’t provide evidence she would authorise the Office of the Public
Advocate to obtain this, even so the Office of the Public Advocate by law is prevented of doing so!
What we have therefore is that VCAT totally disregard the RULE OF LAW and undermine the
civil rights of a citizen so much encompassed within the constitution.
.
HANSARD18 -2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible
government
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this
Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way
that guarantee.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.

Chapter 0003 Page 32


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 33

END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
.
For example the State of South Australian had a ban on political commentaries, as the
Commonwealth of Australia applied but reality is that the constitution guarantees “POLITICAL
LIBERTY” and while the states and the Commonwealth of Australia can legislate as to the conduct
of elections they cannot deny anyone to express his political views and neither subject them to
conditions. If a expression of political rights was to be deformation then ordinary deformation laws
would be the answer to deal with matters but not a ban or conditions upon the exercise of a person’s
POLITICAL LIBERTY. The same with religious practices, the Commonwealth of Australia
cannot, albeit the states can, interfere with religious practices, as the Framers of the Constitution
made clear that if religious practices were in conflict with ordinary criminal law provisions then the
State could deal with it as such. There are States who have certain legal provisions as to the picture
on a driving licence and the Commonwealth of Australia may likewise have certain provisions but
in this case where a person wants to wear a motor cycle helmet then when entering a bank (under
federal legislative powers) must remove the helmet for security reasons but for some strange reason
a woman wearing a clothing item that may prevent any proper recognition doesn’t have to comply
with those provisions. This to me is in fact unconstitutional because laws must not be
discriminatory either in favour of or against a religion.
.
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
QUOTE 184 Application for postal vote
(h) because of the applicant's religious beliefs or membership of a religious order, the applicant:
(i) is precluded from attending a polling booth; or
(ii) for the greater part of the hours of polling on polling day, is precluded from
attending a polling booth.
END QUOTE
And
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
QUOTE 245 Compulsory voting
(14) Without limiting the circumstances that may constitute a valid and sufficient
reason for not voting, the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her
religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for the
failure of the elector to vote.
END QUOTE
I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to limit
the right of an objection to be only a (theistic belief) “religious objection” but includes also any
secular belief objection. If Subsection 185 & 245(14) were limited to being “theistic belief” then it
would be unconstitutional.
.
As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an
invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the
matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
.
QUOTE The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test

Chapter 0003 Page 33


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 34

shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust


under the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
While the Framers of the Constitution held that States could provide for religious legislative
provisions the issue is that even if a State were to do so then it must consider how any exclusion
upon constitutional grounds were to be applicable. Because banking (other then State banking
within the limits of a state) is under commonwealth control then no religious exception can be made
for purpose of certain clothing, like for example Muslim women in their Islamic traditions (which is
not applied by all women in that regard) hence, if one person is required to remove his helmet for
security reasons then anyone else regardless of gender likewise must be compelled to do so.
With driving licences, where they are used interstate and/or for Commonwealth registered purposes
then again no religious exclusions can be permitted as to do so would offend s.116 of The
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Neither can there be any issue as to a
person refusing immunization upon religious beliefs to be permitted to do so unless it provides for
any other person regardless of being religious (“theistic belief”) any “secular belief”.
The following was in fact successfully litigated in my refusal to vote in elections where voting was
compelled to be done upon the basis that I could not be compelled to vote (as the Framers of the
Constitution refused the Commonwealth of Australia to compel anyone to vote) and also that I was
entitled to refuse to vote regardless of there not being any religious reasons. The County Court of
Victoria on 19 July 2006 after a 5-year epic legal battle upheld both cases against the
Commonwealth of Australia unchallenged.
.
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
QUOTE
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.
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.
END QUOTE
And;
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
QUOTE
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption
letter and support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Chapter 0003 Page 34


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 35

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your
religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the
bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your religious
beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately
misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
QUOTE
.
What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion and
neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be
associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious objection” Subsection 245(14) of
the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this
would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious objection” applies as
much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal
reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
.
QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.

Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate that
while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection only to an
“theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes any secular belief
based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for an
“objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia
to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious objections”.

Chapter 0003 Page 35


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 36

Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of “religious
objection” have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
“religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as
“objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA


END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a
charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world
than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote.
The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
And
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 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.
END QUOTE
What this indicates is that the constitution was intended to protect citizens from any inappropriate
intrusion of their constitutional and other legal rights.
.

Chapter 0003 Page 36


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Chapter 0003 Page 37

* Didn’t the Framers of the Constitution make known that they could not interfere with State
internal matters?
.
**#** They didn’t but they embedded in the constitution the legal principle that they held was
applicable and the States legal procedures obviously must be tailored to it being “subject to this
constitution”. As such, you cannot have that some municipal or shire council who are not a
constitutional level of government then retrospectively apply laws that never were intended to be
applied retrospectively merely as to try to get back upon a property owner for standing up for his
constitutional rights. Neither can then VCAT disregard the provisions of the Infringement Act 2006
and still hold litigation in VCAT as to ensure it can manipulate its powers in favour of the State
government, because we all must oppose this as being unconstitutional as it seeks slowly bit by bit
to deny people their constitutional rights to have matters adjudicated in a state court.
.
* But can’t you always appeal?
.
**#** Why should an innocent person be put to the expenses of having to appeal in the first place
because that in itself is an injustice. More over an appeal ordinary is based upon an error of law and
so can deny the appellant his original legal position where there is no error in law but VCAT merely
used its consideration to extend its ability to issue orders. I do not accept that a tribunal can be used
against anyone and by this inflict more cost upon a person, unless this person has first consented to
this alternative mediation. If however the person is forced to be subjected to tribunal hearings then
it is in my view unconstitutional and it not then an alternative mediation centre at all because as
with Francis James Colosimo orders in excess of $10,000.00 was ordered for a mere one day
hearing which was in any event EX PARTE and a concocted litigation.
.
* On that basis I take it that Peter Spencer’s 52 day hunger strike was correct?
.
**#** I view he was misguided in how to go about it. In my view he should have instead litigated
his case in the High Court of Australia in the manner set out above that the State was obligated to
provide “just” compensation.
.
* Didn’t the High Court of Australia previously decide that the States are not bound to do so?
.
**#** As set out above the High Court of Australia did so also about the issue canvassed in
“Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED” but that doesn’t mean it is
correct. It simply never considered matters as I do as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. The same is with
FEE SIMPLE it never considered the Queensland decision as to the validity or better to state the
invalidity of the legislation where constitutionally the Upper House really was never abolished and
so where no Bill was passed by this Upper House since 1921 then all and every Bill since never was
constitutionally validly enacted. This has been extensively canvassed in the next “Chapter 0005
The validity of State constitution amendments” and therefore no need to deal with it now
extensively.
.
* But didn’t the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill argue that in passing of time it changed?
.
**#** The constitutional meaning and application cannot be twisted and infringed upon. Fancy you
going to a judge and tell him that in time his property became your property because by affliction of
time. I don’t thing he will then use the Sue v Hill argument! It simply was an ill-conceived
judgment and in my view placed the judiciary in disrepute. We need to go by facts and whatever
changes anyone desires it must always be done within the RULE OF LAW.

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!

Chapter 0003 Page 37


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1 st 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, by fax 0011-
61-3 -94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com