ISSUE Malcolm Turnbul, the Republic issue and the constitution.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

constitution.
Malcolm Turnbull I understood to state on radio that the Republic would have to wait after the
Queens reign. (To that effect). The truth is we have not the Queens reign but the Monarchy and
that is ongoing. We do not have the equivalent of a Singaporean constitution!
QUOTE

PART I
PRELIMINARY
Citation.
1. This Constitution may be cited as the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Amendment of Constitution.
5.
(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law
enacted by the Legislature.
END QUOTE
I will let the Framers of the Constitution explain it:
HANSARD 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding one-"External affairs
and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true; but there are a very large number of people
who look forward with interest to the Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part of the British Empire,
the regulation of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to whether the one thing is included in
the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in this question, that it is better in deference
to their views to leave the words as they are. As the subsection may do some good, and can do no harm, I think that
the objection should not be pressed.
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 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. MUNRO:
. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic, and to
establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be responsible, the state
p1
20-12-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in view the formation of true
responsible government.
END QUOTE
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the responsibilities of selfgovernment. They have amply proved in the past that they are entitled to be trusted with all the powers appertaining
to a free people. They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution
second to none in the world.
END QUOTE
Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN:
We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority constitutes a sort of
vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties should be the
other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of the states from being drawn into this central authority, and
from having their powers finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in America, whether it be the
United States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards centralisation, and away from that
local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have heard it said that those who advocate state rights
are taking a conservative view of the question. I would like to know since what time have centralisation and
democracy been associated? Those who advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose
shadow alone democracy can exist. There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if
you handicap a house, which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the establishment,
in this huge island of Australia, of a strong central government which is local only to one portion of the
continent, and as far as the rest of the continent is concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central
government, just inasmuch as it never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably
associated with tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because a central
and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for which it is to legislate. I [start
page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention should for one moment say that to strengthen in
every way the rights of the states, as such-to protect in every way the local institutions-is the conservative
mission. The whole history of federation has proved it is otherwise. It was in the name of state rights, when
the question of the Constitution of America was being discussed, that the most fervent appeals to liberty that
ever stirred the human breast were made, and all those opposed to state rights were the conservatives, the
monarchists of that time. The strongest upholders of state rights from time to time have been those in favour
of government by the people, and it is only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local
government, that you can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is never
government by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or commonwealth forms
as under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members will not allow themselves to be
hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing majority in favour of the state rights that are essential
to federation, which we had at the commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I maintain that
unless the state rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to enable them to stand up
against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever take root in Australia. It will not
be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation, a unification, which, instead of being a
guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most distinct tyrant, and eventually will overcome it.
END QUOTE
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of the
constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute majority of
both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed amendment must be
submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose,
and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law,
subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might be amended, and by
a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
Hansard 6-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Clause 57 (Royal assent to bills).

p2
20-12-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. DIBBS: The second portion of this clause seems to me to be a novelty in responsible government. Is the
governor-general to be the governor-general and executive? The latter portion of the clause seems to me to be
perfectly useless.
Mr. MUNRO: Some verbal amendments may be required to be made in a bill!
Clause agreed to.
Clause 58. When the governor-general assents to a law in the Queen's name he shall by the first convenient
opportunity send an authentic copy to the Queen, and if the Queen-in-Council within two years after receipt
thereof thinks fit to disallow the law, such disallowance being made known by the governor-general, by speech or
message, to each of the houses of the parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the law from and after the day
when the disallowance is so made known.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think the period of disallowance is larger than is necessary. It was all very well many years
ago, when the communication with England was long and tedious; but now we have such rapid means of
communication that I think two years is too long. I think it might very well be reduced by one-half or one-fourth. Six
months or a year would be quite sufficient. There is nothing more vexatious than uncertainty in these matters. I think
we should also lay down upon what subjects the power of veto is to be exercised. We shall all agree that in questions
of domestic legislationMr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!
Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will exist with
the least strained relations with the mother country. Nothing gives rise to such vexation as a veto upon questions of
domestic legislation. Take the case of Canada.
Mr. MUNRO: Two years is the period fixed under their Constitution!
Dr. COCKBURN: I know; but it was fixed many years ago. There is nothing more irritating than vetoing of
domestic legislation. In the case of Canada, one of the first acts of the federal government was to reduce, by act of
parliament, the salary of the governor-general from 10,000 to 6,500 a year, and this act, which was purely one of
domestic legislation, was vetoed by the Imperial Government. I think the more we confine and define the limit of
veto, the less risk there is of inharmonious relations with the mother country. I therefore move:
That the word "two," line 5, be emitted with a view to the insertion of the word "one."
[start page 764]
I also intend to move:
That the following words be added to the clause:-"Provided such disallowance shall be exercised on such subjects
only as affect imperial interests, and are specified in schedule B."
END QUOTE
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
Considering that the states are created within section 106 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and s128 cannot deal with the previous 8 parts as
to the Monarchy, then only a revolution (peaceful or otherwise) can achieve a Republic.
Technically the federation exist only because of the constitution which doesn't allow for a
Republic. Hence to divert from the Monarchy means to divert from the constitution and so
the current States would be independent bodies and as I understand it WA likely wouldn't
want to join any other federation whereas at the time of federation it was the poor State
now its has that much wealth in the ground to explore it would want to go its own way.
Only a fool would hold that to become a Republic can be obtained suing s128 referendum of
the constitution, as it cannot be done.
Again the only way to become a Republic would require some form of revolution.

p3
20-12-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

And consider the following:

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 bodiesthe 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.
END QUOTE
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of hon. gentlemen. I
confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr. Deakin, talks about the powers exercised by the
ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. They do not differ in any respect from the powers exercised by ministers
of the Crown in any other country.
Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!
END QUOTE
Perhaps now you may understand that with a CONSTITUTIONAL PARLIAMENT Ministers are
bound within the constitution and its embedded legal principles whereas with a Republic if
the Parliament decides the constitution then it can alter it as they now purport to do such as
the unconstitutional 1975 Victorian Constitution Act.
IT IS ALL ABOUT MINISTERS DESIRING UNLIMITED POWERS.
As I indicated the so called NWO (New World Order) falls foul upon our constitution but if we
become a Republic where the Parliament decides the constitution, as you do not hear
Republicans talking about any constitution as they purport to keep the same constitution
only to afterwards then declare "Fool you the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) is no more and we decide the limit of our powers, which is there are no
limits and we decide what rights you have, and there are no rights, etc.". In effect a party
then in power could prevent any further elections to be held and become a
tyrannical government.
For the above it must be clear that Malcolm Turnbull in Her Majestys service as Prime
Minister might have committed TREASON as to advocate a Republic after the current
Monarch dies.

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

p4
20-12-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati