ROYAL COMMISSION Into COVID-19 Issues Is Badly Needed-Supplement 5

20200707-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE –
ROYAL COMMISSION into COVID-19 issues is badly needed-Supplement 5
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, I understand you yesterday wrote to the Victorian Ombudsman again following your 8
April 2020 writings?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as a constitutionalist I pursue the true meaning and application
of the constitution but it is very obvious that those in power are determine to blatantly disregard
what is constitutionally appropriate and permissible and this I view has to end, one way or
another.
I did write to the Victorian Ombudsman:

In all fairness to the Victorian Ombudsman she did pass the correspondence on to
IBAC. However now the issue is will she act appropriately to deal with matters or will
eventually CIVIL WAR be the only answer to seek to resolve issues?
This document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/468148779/20200706-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Deborah-
Glass-Victorian-Ombudsman
* You expect a possible CIVIL WAR, what do you suggest?

**#** Well, I write recently that the ADF (Australian Defense Force) cannot in violation to
QUOTE
119 Protection of States from invasion and violence
The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the
Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.
END QUOTE
see also
Where infections are generally due to close contact then why all the rot about
lockdowns and social distancing? Let us get some real competent leadership dealing
with matters. No unconstitutional military invasion!
This document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/466798904/20200623-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
B-ISSUE-The-Constitutionality-of-Using-Defence-Force-Re-COVID-19
And also consider:
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
p1 7-7-2020 © 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
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE

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
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.
END QUOTE
While some states argued (for example Victoria/Queensland) that they can amend their
constitution by parliamentarian majority reality is that they cannot and any purported amendment
without the sanction of State electors by way of referendum is unconstitutional.
QUOTE

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
Clearly no Parliament/Government can unilaterally overrule the constitution as all any

Parliament can do is to propose a referendum seeking the electors to veto or approve a proposed
change to a constitution.
.
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
. The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more repulsive than the
question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the existence in our midst of a certain
number of idle men-men sharpening their knives and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of
fleshing them on the people of their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-
federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no enemies
within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the soil; we have no powerful
Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the
Maoris themselves. We have no enemies within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of
any assault on the mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a
standing army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for
unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these
resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to make every man
who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst
us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without. Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the
enemies of England, and they, so long as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer
barrier, an outer bulwark in the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we
have no enemies within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a standing army upon us.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
END QUOTE
QUOTE. Sir JAMES LEE-STEERE:
I do not think it will be apparent to many hon. members that resolution No. 4 points in any
degree whatever to a standing army. It does not do so in my view; and I am sure it was not
intended to do so. The intention, I take it, is this: that we should maintain a permanent
force or a militia, which would be available in time of danger, and with which we
might be in a position to assist the mother country in her defence of this portion of
her dominions. I myself, and most hon. gentlemen here, would feel humiliated if, on war
breaking out between the mother country and some other power, we had to call upon her to
send a force here to defend our hearths and homes. It is our desire that we should not be
made to feel that humiliation, and that we may be prepared, as we ought, to assist the
mother country, rather than ask her aid, should war at any time break out. It is with that
view that it is proposed:

That the military and naval defence of Australia shall be intrusted to federal forces, under
one command.
I believe, as has been stated by some other members, that Major-General Edwards' report
was the origin of the conference held in Melbourne to consider the advisableness of
framing a federal constitution for the whole of Australia.
END QUOTE
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 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is th at the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
responsible Minister.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
.
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
.
And then consider :
QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is th at the
Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one
would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a
responsible Minister.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon
asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the
prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never
entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Despite my repeated request over the many years for a ROYAL COMMISSION in regard of
the unconstitutional Iraq invasion, mass murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc, no
such ROYAL COMMISSION was ever held. We are talking about numerous lives not just
injured but lost of innocent civilians and all based upon alleged WMD (Weapons of Mass
Destruction). Clearly where the then Governor-General had not published in the Gazette a
Proclamation to authorise the armed invasion into Iraq then I view this means that Section 24AA
applies.
What however now is happening is that the Federal Government ensures that Generals are
commissioned as Governor-Generals so they will remain silent and allow the continuously
ongoing violations of the constitution, and certainly not going to order such a ROYAL
COMMISSION.
.
*. If I can interrupt. If you were Governor-General would you provide for a ROYAL
COMMISSION into the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions involving the Commonwealth of
Australia?
**#** If I were the Governor-General it would be my duty and obligation to do so also to ensure
a ROYAL COMMISSION investigated the COVID-19 related issues. After all why have a
constitution if politicians and their public servants can blatantly disregard it while they hold
citizens, well as long as it doesn’t fit their political mantra, accountable! Consider the current
outbreak in Victoria with COVID-19. Firstly, Section 24AA cannot be ignored and neither can
be applied only against some persons but not others. For the rule of law all people are equal.
Secondly, I have written for many months about this COVID-19 issue and we still lack a proper
testing system to determine of a person is actually infected with COVID-19 and not with some
other coronavirus that also has been going around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yo_uALpJYQ
Social Distancing and Lockdown is Bogus WHO Says Asymptomatic Are Not Infectious
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/scientists-warn-covid-19-is-spread-through-air/ar-
BB16nhCu?ocid=msedgntp
Scientists warn COVID-19 is spread through air
QUOTE
Led by Professor Lidia Morawska, the experts say the 1.5 metre social distancing rule is not far
enough.
"Studies by the signatories and other scientists have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that
viruses are exhaled in microdroplets small enough to remain aloft in the air and pose a risk of exposure
beyond 1m to 2m by an infected person," Professor Morawska said.
"At typical indoor air velocities, a five-micron droplet will travel tens of metres, much greater than the
scale of a typical room while settling from a height of 1.5m above the floor."
END QUOTE

GOING BY THE MANTRA OF THESE SCIENTIST EVEN “SOCIAL DISTANCING”
OF 10 METRES MAY NOT BE ENOUGH.
Do you really think that the State government will introduce “social distancing” of at least 10
metres on public transport when it doesn’t even apply the 1.5 metres rule?
As I wrote many months ago the Chinese Government warned in a video about transmission
being done through the air, not just droplets.
The problem is however that as I wrote to the Victorian Ombudsman the USA CDC has been
double counting test results. This in addition to many test results turning out to be false. And, let
is not ignore that Premier Daniel Andrews instructed the Victoria Police not to fine people failing
to keep “social distancing” during the protest and yet the police is to fine people otherwise. As
such the Victorian Police are nothing more but what I consider to be Government sponsored
terrorist to selectively fine certain people but not those who align with the political agenda of the
Premier.
I this morning was watching a 2013 video presentation by Professor Emeritus Princeton
University Nell Painter “Why White People are Called Caucasian (Illustrated)” and as she
explained long before the slavery from Africa to the USA there was already for centuries “white
slavery” which actually consist even today. Also, many “African Americans” actually migrated
voluntarily to the USA from other countries. Actually, she pointed out that because of the
Ottoman Empire “white slavery” was stopped to Europe which then was followed to Africans
being sold to the USA however “white slavery” to Muslim countries continued.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/andrews-govt-has-one-rule-for-the-mob-and-one-
rule-for-everyone-else/ar-BB15bHTd?ocid=spartandhp
Andrews govt has 'one rule for the mob' and 'one rule for everyone else'
When then anyone claims to support ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER” which actually is a well
funded political party but not expressing “ALL LIVES MATTER” then we are dealing with
racism big times. Hence, Premier Daniel Andres allowing protest without the participants facing
any fines because he instructed the police not to do so, clearly shows that we have DOUBLE
STANDARDS.
And now, weeks later, there is this gigantic blow out of claimed infections but let us not criticise
the very Premier who I view is responsible for this, considering also the fiasco with untrained
security guards sleeping with those held in QUARANTINE while permitted to go shopping.
A Premier who also made some deal with the Chinese regarding BRI (Belt and Road Initiative)
which I view violates Section 44 of the constitution. It should be understood that s44 as much
applies to State as federal politicians in view the states are created in Section 106 of the
constitution “SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION”.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/andrews-should-not-have-entered-into-belt-and-road-
initiative-labor-senator/ar-BB15bGvq?ocid=spartandhp
Andrews 'should not have entered into' Belt and Road Initiative: Labor Senator
Let us not ignore “China’s debt trap diplomacy backfires for the first time”. This video also
exposes that contracts of any works must be primary given to Chinse companies!
Sri Lanka unable to repay the debt in time then had to provide a 99 year lease regarding
Hambantota Port to the Chinese.
As I previously made clear any port lease where Daniel Andrews extracted about $9 billion was
in defiance with Section 92 of the constitution. Now with the BLI it appears he further is so to
say in bed with the Chinese to so to say sell out Victorians as well as others.

Yet despite of all this the Federal government did absolutely nothing. As such, I view it aided
and abetted with constitutional violations. The same as it seeks to do with deploying the ADF at
the NSW –Victorian border.
.
What we now have is all around government sponsored terrorism.
.
We also have to consider:
Crimes Act 1914, Part II — Offences against the Government

24AA Treachery
(1) A person shall not:
(a) do any act or thing with intent:
(i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage; or
(ii) to overthrow by force or violence the established government of the
Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country.
Obviously one cannot violate Section 24AA where in the first place we do not have a legitimate
Government. Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is
claimed to have stated:
“I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system
in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law.”
As a constitutionalist I view that where the Commonwealth of Australia became a registered

corporation with the District of Columbia that is under the legislative powers of the USA Senate
then s44 applies. The same as it applies to those Members of parliament who had foreign
investment or otherwise holdings in foreign countries, such as, I understood Malcolm Turnbull
had while Prime Minister.
It should be understood that as I successfully pursued during 2 appeals on 19 July 2006 in AEC v
Schorel-Hlavka, that “citizenship” has nothing to do with nationality but is no more but
applicable to where a person resides. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:

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

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 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
.
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
It is therefore very clear that “citizenship” is not a legislative power the Commonwealth
possesses and it certainly has nothing to do with nationality.
There is a lot more I could add but considering the various persons who gave me the
understanding they do not desire the ADF to violate their constitutional rights and neither any
premier, such as Section 117 then well I can understand they desire to even have a CIVIL WAR.
Albeit I oppose any killings as I understand some contemplate. I view Section 24AA cannot be
applied against people who seek no more but to pursue their constitutional rights. I am not going
to quote all the relevant Authorities as I have done so ample of times in the past.
* So you hold the border closure to be unconstitutional and the ADF involvement also?
**#** That is correct. And this may underline why we shouldn’t have a general as Governor-
General but have an ordinary person who is willing to act in accordance with the constitution and
not despite of it. We cannot and shouldn’t have ADF involved in law enforcement against our
own people. And considering the reports as to what some of the ADF did in Afghanistan I
certainly wouldn’t want them to engage or being able to engage in similar manner against
Australians.
* Is your view that those now calling for getting rid of the politicians, the police and the ADF if
they get also involved might be constitutionally valid?
**#** In my view if any of them violates peoples constitutional rights then they are permitted to
pursue their constitutional rights.
While Premier Daniel Andrews purportedly locked up people in high rising flats with some 14
days health order, in my view such orders should have been before the courts and each
respondent to be permitted to oppose such order! This is what the Framers of the Constitution
made clear!

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now?
END QUOTE
This is a legal principle embedded in the constitution but it appears to me that politicians like
Daniel Andrews couldn’t give a hood about what is the true meaning and application of the
constitution. In the process in my view the Victorian Police has become a terrorist organization
to blatantly disregard the true rule of law with their government sanctioned terrorism. It
undermines the community confidence in the police force who is there to assist citizens to be
protected from such form of terrorism.
I for one do not seek to encourage anyone to engage in a CIVIL WAR but when the very
politicians who are elected to represent the people are turning against them using their mantra to
try to justify any unconstitutional conduct then they are the once’s who give the people no other
choice but to fight for their constitutional rights in the best manner they view is appropriate to
further their cause.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
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!)


ROYAL COMMISSION Into COVID-19 Issues Is Badly Needed-Supplement 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROYAL COMMISSION Into COVID-19 Issues Is Badly Needed-Supplement 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20200707-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

I did write to the Victorian Ombudsman:

* You expect a possible CIVIL WAR, what do you suggest?

This document can be downloaded from:

And also consider:

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p2 7-7-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Clearly no Parliament/Government can unilaterally overrule the constitution as all any

p3 7-7-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p5 7-7-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p6 7-7-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Crimes Act 1914, Part II — Offences against the Government

As a constitutionalist I view that where the Commonwealth of Australia became a registered

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p7 7-7-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p9 7-7-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like