20211102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-27-Legal Principles

Page 1
1
2
3 Reece Kershaw 2-11-2021
4 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
5 Forwarded via email commissioner@afp.gov.au
6
7 Cc: Mr Scott Morrison via email
8 acv@health.gov.au Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
9 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
10
11 Committees@health.gov.au Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
12 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
13
14 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
15
16 Mr Martin Pakula, martin.pakula@parliament.vic.gov.au, attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
17
18 20211102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police-
19 Suppl-27-Legal principles
20
21 COMPLAINT
22 Sir,
23 Just having completed supplement 26 my attention was drawn to that Premier Daniel
24 Andrews has put in train legislation that essentially gives him dictatorship powers, etc. Also I
25 understand that Justice Robert Beech-Jones made a ruling in the N.S.W. case involving Nathasha
26 Henry & 8 other employees. I understand that His Honour declared that Australia “Does Not
27 have a bill of rights” and ruled that Vaccine Mandates are legal. His Honour seemed to go on
28 that the restrictions, etc, precisely are what the (NSW) Public Health Act clearly authorized. His
29 Honour made clear that Australia has no Bill of Rights. I do not know if he at all considered that
30 the “provisional approval” to use any so called vaccine was for “clinical trials” only and not
31 for any “commercial” purchased so called vaccines?
32 Let us from onset indicate what the Framers of the Constitution stated:
33
34 HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term "due process of law"?
37 Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection
38 to every citizen.
39 Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
40 Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?
41 Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
42 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these
43 Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions
44 in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
2-11-2021 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a
2 law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with
3 citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is
4 also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State.
5 Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.
6 Mr. OCONNOR.-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by any state if it
7 chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of offences, or particular class of
8 persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects of some wild impulse on the part of a majority of
9 the community, and unjust laws were passed-
10 Mr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?
11 Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not necessary to refer to.
12 Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna Charta?
13 Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution?
14 Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by an Act of the
15 Federal Parliament?
16 Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the Constitution of the
17 states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact any laws which it thought fit, and
18 even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only
19 dealing with a possibility, but at the same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might,
20 would be very disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it.
21 [start page 684]

22 Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 The issue therefore is that the original Magna Charta so the Framers of the Constitution held
26 could be repealed by the states. However, we then also have the following:
27
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
31 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
32 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
33 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
34 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
35 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 As such, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) which in fact also
39 includes the provisions as it then was of the original Magna Charta as a legal principle embedded
40 in this constitution. The problem is that when lawyers are filing cases in court and so to say do
41 not understand the constitutional basis that are applicable then you likely will end up with a
42 judge who also may lack to understand the real constitutional issues at play. By these clients may
43 suffer an injustice when their lawyers lost the case.
44 Too often lawyers (including barristers and judges) are too arrogant, that well they know it all,
45 because after all they have a degree in law, so how can anyone else then know what was/is
46 constitutionally applicable, just that they ignore that having a degree as a medical doctor doesn’t
47 make this doctor a heart specialist or a brain surgeon. As such, if they venture out into an area of
48 law that they have next to no understanding as to how it is applicable they are doing a disservice
49 to their clients to even contemplate to litigate unless the first do as I did and that is spend
50 considerable time to research relevant matters.
Page 3
1
2 When I took over the appeal case of Mr Francis James Colosimo (from his barrister) against
3 Order of Administration, I didn’t have a clue as to the medical issues they were on about and
4 neither did need to as my expertise is to question what the medical doctors had stated as to if this
5 was justified in law. I therefore didn’t challenge their assessments but challenged the legal
6 validity both medical specialist had relied upon the advise of the Office of the Public Advocate
7 that Mr Francis James Colosimo refused to accept that he was convicted of CONTEMPT OF
8 COURT (and he personally denied being convicted also) and of their Affidavits as being without
9 legal merit. And that in the end was what I succeeded upon. This, as Her Honour Harbison J in
10 the CONTEMPT OF COURT proceedings, at which time I also represented Mr Francis James
11 Colosimo, conceded that Mr Francis James Colosimo was not at all convicted. As such, the
12 medical specialist made recommendations on the mere allegation by the Office of the Public
13 Advocate that Mr Francis James Colosimo was convicted of CONTEMPT OF COURT even so
14 he had not been. In other legal proceedings I cross-examined medical doctors and also exposed
15 that they were filing Affidavits as to what they were “told” and not as to what they personally
16 had established as “facts”.
17
18 I below will outline why I view His Honour Beech-Jones was wrong in his reported judgment,
19 this even so I have not read the reason of judgment and neither have been listening to any of the
20 proceedings. It is simply what is reported in The Epoch Times October 22-28 2021 which
21 indicates to me His Honour Beech-Jones does not appear to be aware of what constitutionally
22 was applicable. After all, if the Public Health Act is irrelevant to the issue of “man-kind”
23 “infectious” diseases then His Honour in my view should have referred to the appropriate legal
24 issues. I merely assume that he didn’t do so as otherwise I had expected the article to have
25 referred to other legal issues, this also considering that The Epoch times to my understanding
26 seeks to be very accurate in its reporting.
27
28 Before delving into matters I view it better to quote what a scientist stated:
29
30 https://newsvoice.se/2015/05/09/dr-erik-enby-searching-for-the-essence-of-cronic-
31 diseases-its-in-the-blood/
32 Dr Erik Enby: The source of chronic diseases is found in the blood
33 QUOTE
34 Many great researchers have said that one must be like a child to be successful in the
35 world of discoverers and scientists. This does not mean that such a person is childish and
36 naive. Instead it is a question of how to take an innocent attitude to those around, to be
37 open and unprejudiced. Such individuals, therefore, may seem somewhat naive when in
38 their eagerness they try to tell what they are doing and inform about their findings.
39 Sometimes they can suddenly seem almost mentally disturbed.
40 How did Albert Einstein (1879-1955) look when he discovered that a door can be made to
41 open by breaking a ray of light? Or imagine the reaction of Wilhelm Röntgen (1845-1923)
42 when he realized that it is possible to see right through an organism! Imagine Alexander
43 Fleming (1881-1955) when he realized that infections can be cured with something that
44 was later named penicillin!
45 It often happens that the discoverer cries: “Look!” Others look but understand perhaps
46 nothing, and the discoverer remains alone with his discovery. So far he himself does not
47 know much, because he sees what he has discovered for the first time. The discoverer
48 usually has not led the life of an ordinary person, because then he would not have made any
49 discovery. As everybody knows, there is something called “being out exploring”.
Page 4
1 One has to do that in order to find something new. When the explorer makes his
2 discoveries he is astonished, but perhaps he says: “Wasn´t that exactly what I believed?”
3 Already he had an idea of what he was after, because otherwise he would not have
4 embarked on his expedition. It is usually in connection with such a mysterious inner force
5 that the explorer makes his discovery. The question is if this can be called curiosity, and if
6 there is at all any word for the quality of being this way. He feels what is out there in the
7 unknown, and suddenly he finds it.
8 How this happens is a mystery, but it takes place in his mind. It is really like doing a
9 jigsaw. All the pieces are there. Some are in place, but it is a question of finding the
10 remaining and put them together with the rest in order to reach the optimal result. This can
11 take a very long time.
12 What we call chance sometimes has had a great importance in such a connection, because
13 it was certainly chance that made Alexander Fleming discover the penicillin. That this
14 happened just to Fleming, of course, was a consequence of what he was working with as
15 well as the conditions prevailing in and round his laboratory. When he returned to this from
16 a vacation he noticed that in some areas of an unwashed culture of bacteria there were no
17 bacteria growing.
18 Alexander Fleming – Photo: Wikimedia Commons – Imperial War Museums

19 Fleming noticed this being no result of an experiment of his, but something that showed
20 itself to him by coincidence – chance – and could as well have avoided his attention.
21 Fleming, however, was observant enough to notice the phenomenon, and as he understood
22 that there must be a reason for this, he started looking for it, and you can say that this work
23 was a consequence of luck.
24 The fact that Fleming in that way was able to explain that a penicillin producing mould
25 was the cause of the phenomenon, on the other hand, was no coincidence – chance. If the
26 presence of this fungus could be explained by the fact that a colleague next door was
27 working with fungi, the spores of which may have found a suitable soil for their continued
28 development to the penicillin-producing bacteria-counteracting fungus in Fleming´s
29 unwashed culture of bacteria, is something one can just suppose, but this must then have
30 been coincidental. The circumstances thus opened the doors for Fleming, who thanks to
31 being unusually lucky as well as observant realized what he should do in his laboratory.
32 This resulted in Fleming receiving a Nobel Prize.
33 Sometimes the discovery happens in a dream. This is told by professor August Kekulé
34 (1829-1896), who claimed that in a dream he had experienced something telling him that
35 the 6-membered ring in benzene existed. How he later on showed that this was the case, is
36 another story, however, it is told that, thanks to what happened in his dream, he ended up
37 right in his work. Frédéric Chopin (1810-1849) had paper and pencil beside him when
38 sleeping, because suddenly he was inspired in his sleep. At once he wrote down what he
39 had dreamt, and it is told that, among other things, the revolution étude was made this way.
40 Finding the place where the Inca treasure lies hidden could perhaps happen in a similar
41 way. Perhaps the place would show itself before one´s eyes if, during a very long period of
42 time, one would occupy oneself intensely with finding the treasure. However, only those
43 who try hard can experience something like that, and discoveries mostly are made only by
44 persons who exert themselves to the utmost.

Page 5
1 Another way of inventing can be rediscovering something that has been known before,
2 but has been forgotten, or for different reasons has escaped arousing interest, or has even
3 been kept secret. An example of this is the rediscovery of the continental shift, which was
4 imagined already 300 years ago, and which in the beginning of the twentieth century was
5 mentioned again by Alfred Wegener (1880-1930). Gregor Mendel´s (1822-1884) research
6 in the theory of heredity (Mendel´s laws) is another example.
7 Myself I have experienced some of all this. I have already mentioned the expedition. But
8 why did I embark on it? Well, there is a reason for everything, and the reason was that
9 there were things happening around me, which I wanted explained.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 Growing up in The Netherlands my interest was constitutional law. However, joining the Dutch
13 army stopped this. Then when I obtained leave to migrate to and having arrived my interest then
14 fell to research the Australian constitution [Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
15 (UK)] Never mind I lacked at the time any ability to read let alone write in the English language,
16 and had to work having a wife and child, however I never had any doubt that somehow I would
17 pursue my interest.
18 Over the decades I would be at bar tables and realized that many if not most lawyers would
19 know of head certain well known cases, but somehow may not know the cases themselves. As
20 such, they parroted what they had drilled into them rather than to speak from knowledge and
21 understanding. I appeared before judges citing their own past representation before the courts
22 and being told I was wrong, albeit when they the judges checked back in the Law Reports
23 discovered that indeed I was correct. And that in itself should be a warning that when you
24 present a case at the bar table you cannot rely upon that the trial judge will know what you are
25 talking about but you have to feed the judge like a little child and spoon feed it with the relevant
26 quotations you rely upon. This is why my writings are generally littered with quotations so that
27 any reader without needing to search in some law library can instantly read what I rely upon,
28 albeit they can always check back if they desire to do so.
29
30 We are now having Victoria to become, so it is indicated, a dictatorial government, where the
31 Premier at his unilateral decision can declare anyone to be undesirable and well face huge fines
32 and allegedly up to 2 years imprisonment, and severe restriction to any adjudication before the
33 courts.
34 I was watching some videos involving lawyers and barristers making their statements but to be
35 honest it appears to me they lack the basic understanding of what our constitutional framework is
36 about. Because I happen to know that with basket ball you can score if you get the ball in a net
37 doesn’t mean I am now an expert of netball. Likewise, lawyers giving a running commentary
38 about the omnibus Premier Daniel Andrews is pursuing before the parliament to get ultimately
39 dictatorship powers doesn’t mean they understand what the constitution does or doesn’t allow.
40 Indeed, if they knew I view they would have so to say being singing a different song.
41
42 I always have suggested that to learn legal principles embedded in the constitution one basically
43 has to forget everything one knows about law. This, because the mind has been able to become
44 corrupted by whatever was dictated during law studies and so one lose the ability to grasp what
45 really is written. Lawyers, in my view far too often “read what they want to read” rather then
46 read what is written”. What lawyers generally do is because of the law studies they read the
47 constitution differently then what an unlettered person would do. I will not repeat in every detail
48 what I set out in Supplement 26, as it would only to duplicate the same. However, will build
49 further onto it.
50
Page 6
1 When the Framers of the Constitution were debating how to get the draft of the constitution they
2 would at times talk about something, then days later discus something and refer back to the issue
3 . A person who has not read the debates in full may not have a clue what then is being debated.
4 Indeed, they can then and do draw incorrect conclusions.
5
6 Let’s use an example:
7
8 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
9 Australasian Convention)
10 QUOTE
11 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal
12 natives shall not be counted.
13 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose
14 in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to
15 be debarred from voting.
16 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal
17 population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
18 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
19 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be
20 deducted.
21 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
22 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up
23 the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
24 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
25 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that
26 when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these
27 aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South
28 Australia will have so much the more to pay.
29 Clause, as read, agreed to.

30 END QUOTE
31
32 What the following was meaning:
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
35 END QUOTE
36
37 is that the now Section 41 of the constitution
38
39 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
40 QUOTE
41 41 Right of electors of States
42 No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
43 the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
44 the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
45 from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
46 Commonwealth.
47 END QUOTE
48

Page 7
3 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
4 But let us take first his position in regard to the Commonwealth. Under the power which you have
5 given to the Federal Parliament to make laws regulating immigration and aliens, you embrace every
6 possible set of circumstances under which any person may enter the bounds of the Commonwealth. As
7 you have power to prevent any person from entering any part of the Commonwealth, you have also the
8 power to prevent any person from becoming a member of the Commonwealth community. There is no
9 territorial entity coincident with the Commonwealth. Every part of the Commonwealth territory is
10 part of the state, and it is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state that any person within the bounds
11 of the Commonwealth will have any political rights under the Constitution. Of course, when I speak of
12 a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state, which, of course, stands in
13 exactly the same position.
14 Mr. WISE-Is that clear?
15 [start page 1754]
16 Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is admitted to
17 political rights at the will of the Commonwealth, and upon such terms as the Commonwealth may
18 impose. Every person who has rights as a member of the Commonwealth must be a citizen either of
19 some state or some territory. It is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory that he has
20 any political rights in the Commonwealth.
21 Mr. WISE.-Before the 14th amendment was passed
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
27 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
28 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
29 the aboriginal race in any state.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
35 the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
36 with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
37 existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
38 made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
39 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
40 that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
41 will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
42 laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
43 should not have power to devise such laws.
44 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
45 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
46 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
47 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
48 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 First of all Subsection 51(xxvi) specifically excluded Aboriginals, this as this Section was to
52 DISCRIMINATE against “alien” “inferior” “coloured” “races”.
53
Page 8
1 QUOTE
2 (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any
3 State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Then we had (until 1967 referendum)
8 QUOTE
9 127 Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population
10 In reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a
11 State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall
12 not be counted.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 What this really came to was that Aboriginals were not to be counted because the large
16 aboriginal population in Western Australia likely would have prevented WA to join the
17 federation, this as it was a very young colony and where taxation was per population then this
18 was held to deter WA to join. Essentially from the reading I did this was an issue about taxation.
19 Section 51(xxvi) therefore was to protect Aboriginals to be included as a race, to avoid them
20 being denied equality as like any other Australian. What happened however was that there were
21 so to say agitators claiming that Aboriginals were denied citizenship which was absurd. And
22 when the agitators tried the Federal government to amend ss512(xxvi) to amend it the legal
23 advise, as I understand it, was warning that ss51(xxvi) had too much of a baggage and it would
24 be better to create an new subsection all together. However, the agitators remained to push and
25 then in 1967 we had the con-job referendum to rob the Aboriginals of equality, albeit it was so to
26 say sold to give them equality and citizenship. This while they already had since federation
27 citizenship, and as the Australian Electoral Commission itself in its posters admitted there were
28 Aboriginals who voted in the very first federal election. As such, it was up to the State/Territory
29 to provide a person with voting rights! Since the 1967 con-job referendum the commonwealth
30 gained “exclusive” legislative powers but one finds that the States/Territories nevertheless have
31 enacted legislation and so called treaties, etc, relating to Aboriginals as a race which is clearly
32 ULTRA VIRES as they are all unconstitutional. Yet, I understand that the leader for the
33 amendment of the 1967 referendum was Honoured by the United Nations! Come on, here
34 Aboriginals were reduced to be like “aliens”, “inferior”, “coloured”, “races” and that is
35 something to celebrate?
36
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject
40 of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in
41 America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses
42 his rights.
43 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Yes, the moment the Federal Parliament commenced to legislate regarding Aboriginals (after the
47 1967 con-job referendum) they all lost their rights! It doesn’t matter if those persons of
48 Aboriginal race were in any particular financial, political, social standing as they all lost their
49 rights. They were now delegated to be like “aliens”, “inferior”, “coloured’, “races”.
50 In my view much of the blame also goes to the High Court of Australia, as it wrongly denied the
51 usage of the Hansard Constitutional Convention Debates for about 70 years and so numerous
52 decisions it made were in my view horribly wrong. Including the Jo Belke-Peterson case
53 regarding (purported) Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
54
Page 9

2 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
3 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
4 states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the
5 commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised
6 only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject
7 to the provisions of this constitution.
8 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
9 several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
10 obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
11 enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
12 opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
13 Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
14 commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of
15 the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
16 requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to
17 a parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of
18 the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the
19 commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they
20 exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to
21 make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when
22 the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
23 the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature
24 chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with
25 the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some
26 exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people
27 of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the
28 general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the
29 aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
35 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
36 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
37 the aboriginal race in any state.
38 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
39 understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
40 community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
41 Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
42 do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
43 see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
44 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
45 Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
46 are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
47 not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
48 confines of Victoria at all.
49 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
50 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
51 class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
52 do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended
53 to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not
54 think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.

Page 10
1 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
2 the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
3 with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
4 existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
5 made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
6 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
7 that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
8 will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
9 laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
10 should not have power to devise such laws.
11 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
12 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
13 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
14 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
15 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
16 END QUOTE
17
18 While I understand that many claim that the Framers of the Constitution were racist, I did not
19 gain this kind of perception at all. If anything a proper reading of all documentation would likely
20 result in a fair minded person to conclude that Section 127 was no more to prevent any taxation
21 problems to prevent WA to join and also to avoid Aboriginals being mass murdered for the sake
22 to lower any taxation liabilities. There was absolutely no desire to exclude Aboriginals from
23 exercising any voting rights as it was for the States/Territories to determine which citizens could
24 vote or not in their local political elections and once they gained State/Territorial voting rights
25 then they would AUTOMATICALLY within the provisions of Section 41 obtain voting rights
26 in any federal political election.
27 Neither can you have ss51
29 QUOTE
30 (xxix) external affairs;
31 END QUOTE
32
33 It is absurd to claim that the Commonwealth can use external affairs powers to discriminate
34 against the “general community” while this is prohibited within ss51(xxvi)’.
35
36 In simple terms; ss“(xxix) external affairs;” was misinterpreted by the High Court of Australia.
37
38 Also it should be understood that the meaning and application of a constitutional provisions
39 doesn’t change merely because one person may be deemd to be likeable and not another. The
40 constitutional provision must be regrid, so all people, including unleterred persons would
41 understand the true meaning and application of the constitution.
42
43 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
44 Convention)
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. TRENWITH.-And yet this clause is throwing legislation into the hands of those people who cannot
47 agree.
48 MR. REID.-The lawyers.
49 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?
50 Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.

Page 11
1 Mr. MCMILLAN.-That is one of those commonplaces which are always used. There is no clause or sub-
2 clause of any Bill in the world, even if it were framed by an angel from Heaven, that would not be the subject
3 of litigation.
4 Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.
5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.
6 Mr. ISAACS.-No, lawyers are sent there; they are not drawn from there.
7 END QUOTE
8
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Parliament of South Australia wanted to get rid of the Plimsoll Mark Act-even
13 though there were a majority it would be invalid, but according to the honorable member, when, we have
14 here a case exactly analogous, if the Constitution limits the power of the state, and enacts that certain powers
15 shall belong exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament, and that if the state deals with them it invades the
16 authority of the Commonwealth Parliament, the individual is to have no rights unless he can persuade the
17 Government of the day to take up his case. It is in the interests of the poorer and uninfluential classes of
18 the community, it is. in the interests of the minority, that this amendment should be rejected, because it
19 places an obstacle in the way of obtaining that justice which ought to be free to every individual in the
20 community.
21 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to add my protest against this new clause. I am bound to say
22 something, because the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) says it is only the conservative and timid lawyers
23 who would venture to oppose this proposal.
24 Mr. GORDON.-I did not say that. I said as a rule the legal profession is, according to Herbert Spencer, a
25 timid and conservative class.
26 Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be so, and if the honorable member says he did not make that statement it is all
27 right. Anyhow, I thought he said that only conservative and timid lawyers would oppose this clause. There is
28 no doubt the intention of the honorable member is excellent. He wants to diminish litigation. If he can show
29 that this will diminish litigation to any material extent, and, at the same time, will not involve us in a great
30 many dangers to our liberties, I will go with him, but he has not shown anything of the sort. As Mr. Wise has
31 shown, it will throw an unpopular minority into the power of a chance Ministry of the day. We must see to-
32 day that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals, are preserved in the Constitution. I think
33 Sir John Forrest said that I personally had not got sufficient respect for the rights of individuals.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-It is with something approaching to awe that I venture to differ
39 from the construction placed upon the amendment by the [start page 539] leader of the Convention. The
40 honorable and learned member is a lawyer, and a very astute one. I am a simple layman, who, when he
41 reads the English language, outside of certain Acts of Parliament, puts a reasonable construction upon what
42 he reads.
43 Mr. BARTON.-Is not that claiming infallibility?
44 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I do not claim infallibility; I have read the proposed amendment, as I
45 think any average schoolboy and a good many adults would read it. The amendment is to secure the
46 navigability of all waters so far as they are in fact navigable which, in the course of their flow or after
47 joining other waters, touch more than one state. How can my honorable and learned friend contend that a
48 vessel leaving Adelaide for the Tamar sails its course over the waters of a river which join with the waters
49 of the port from which the vessel comes?
50 Mr. BARTON.-My right honorable friend must have misunderstood me. I never committed myself to
51 any ridiculous nonsense of the kind.
52 END QUOTE
Page 12
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. MCMILLAN: According to the amendment proposed, it would prevent any mere slip of procedure
5 from making invalid an Act which may affect the whole country and its financial operations, but nothing
6 which we may enact with regard to procedure will prevent any suitor from going to the High Court if
7 the Act is essentially unconstitutional. That is the way I look at it, and it seems to me that either putting in
8 "proposed" before "laws," or adding an amendment somewhere or other making it clear that no mere slip of
9 procedure can invalidate the law, would meet all the difficulties.
10 Mr. BARTON: This is not proposed to cover mere slips, but everything.
11 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not think that could be the intention. We are attempting to legislate for a very
12 limited possibility. You will get disputes so long as there are lawyers in the world. I do not know
13 whether Federation will do away with lawyers.
14 Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.
15 Mr. MCMILLAN: If so it would simplify our arrangements very much. At the same time it does seem that
16 there ought to be something introduced to prevent the law being put into operation for a mere breach of
17 procedure, if there is such a chance.
18 Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.
19 Mr. MCMILLAN: I do not suppose that any ordinary moral layman would do it, unless he were
20 instructed by a less moral lawyer.
21 END QUOTE
22
24 Convention)
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 Convention)
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. ISAACS.-If you were to bring in a Bill to impose one tax, would it include a power to repeal
33 another on the same subject?
34 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly.
35 Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.
36 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We have the ablest lawyers divided on this question, and what is the layman to do?
37 END QUOTE
38
40 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
41 That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
42 described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
43 Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
44 this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
45 rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
46 it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
47 understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
48 time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
49 commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
50 appreciated by the people.
51 END QUOTE
Page 13
1 .
2 As the 1967 con-job referendum made clear Aboriginals now were within the legislative powers
3 of the Commonwealth as a “alien”, “coloured”, inferior”, “race” then it is not for the High Court
4 of Australia to somehow undermine constitutional provisions.
5 It is absurd that Barnaby Joyce an Australian born politicians was thrown out of the parliament
6 because of his fathers connections being from New Zealand while the High Court of Australia
7 then allowed two convicted criminals born in New Zealand to nevertheless remain in Australia
8 instead of being deported because of connections to Aboriginals.
9
10 Re Dicey CJ:
11
12 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
13 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
14 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
15 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
16 cannot get behind it.
17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE
21 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
22 terms that are just to both.
23 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
24 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
25 required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
26 together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to
27 draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment,
28 which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
29 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters
30 that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 And the problems are numerous where I view we have so to say brain-dead judges handing down
34 judgments which I view are utter nonsense.
35
36 I in 1988 applied for and obtained my then 2 year old daughter to be made a WARD OF THE
37 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA. In law, as the British courts made clear regarding a
38 WARD OF THE GERMAN COURTS, regardless if the parties were to consent to jurisdiction of
39 the British Court the child was and remained a WARD OF THE GERMAN COURT, and
40 couldn’t be dealt with by the British court. The same is with a WARDS OF THE SUPREME
41 COURT OF VICTORIA where this is a State jurisdiction and N.S.W. Kable made also clear that
42 the Commonwealth cannot interfere with the State legal system. Nevertheless despite my
43 opposition the Family Court of Australia pretended to take over jurisdiction, this also because of
44 the unconstitutional (PURPORTED) Commonwealth Powers (Children) Act 1986, which
45 pretended to transfer legislative powers from the State of Victoria to the Commonwealth.
46 However, as already noted in Supplement 26 without a State referendum the State Parliament
47 lacked any powers to provide for this, as it would remove original jurisdiction from the
48 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA, the court pretended to have jurisdiction and my failure to
49 provide access (by the unconstitutional Family court of Australia access orders (even so within
50 the orders of the SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA I acted appropriately, due to the sexual
51 abuse ongoing involving the mother, etc, I was ordered to be imprisoned for 21 days. After I
52 served 2 weeks and appeared before the Full court who clearly failed to understand relevant

Page 14
1 constitutional orders, despite that I indicated I had served the 21 days due to remissions, Chief
2 Justice Nicholson nevertheless made clear I still had to serve another 7 days, even so the
3 opponent lawyers submitted they were not pursuing this. Nicholson CJ made clear I was wrong
4 about law regarding submissions. However, when returned to the cells I then notified the
5 Sergeant of the Watch that he should contact the Governor of prison to have me released. He did
6 so and he was ordered to release me immediately. I the next day was sitting in a court room, no
7 court in seesnion, when a person I understood to be federal police, asked me to come with him
8 outside the court room. There he gave me the understanding that the Chief Justice had ordered
9 me to be taken to a prison cell to finish the 7 days. I explained that the chief Justice didn’t
10 understand the law and I was free to do what I wanted and would go back into the court room
11 and if the chief Justice was to attack me then he should arrest the Chief Justice. I went back into
12 the court room and no it was in session with the Chief Justice being part of the appellated court
13 in regard of a non-related issue to me. I took a seat right in front of the chief Justice in the public
14 gallery to let him know his little scheme failed. I understand that months later the Family Law
15 Act 1975 was amended to deny federal prisoners any remission of time. This in my view is
16 unconstitutional as it interferes with equal rights provided to all prisoners held in State prisons.
17 You cannot have that when prison guards go on strike and then some prisoners are because of
18 this provided with remission of time whereas orders in the same position are not. Again, this is
19 the Kable principle. What I proved was that the Chief Justice clearly never understood what was
20 constitutionally and otherwise legally applicable. I was imprisoned not because I violated the
21 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA court orders, as they were specifically made to ensure I
22 could protect my daughter against sexual abuse while to be on access to her mother, but to me
23 the Family Court of Australia appeared to be more interested to facilitate paedophilia. The fact
24 that constitutionally it had no legal powers in the first place seemed to me not to be of any
25 concern to the judges as after all they wield the power!
26
27 While the Commonwealth (rightly or wrongly) legislated for same sex couples to be able to
28 become married, nevertheless the apurported provisions of the 1986 act remains unconstitutional.
29
30 And this is far more a problem then most if any other person seems to understand.
31
32 The Commonwealth was given certain defined constitutional powers and this actually also
33 included legislative powers as to waterside workers. However the then Federal Minister for
34 Industrial Relations P Reith appeared not to understand this as such. (the Patrick affair)
35
36 We need however to consider the following also:
37
39 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
40 The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
41 END QUOTE
42 And
44 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
45 We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That
46 would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
47 END QUOTE
48 And
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place
52 where the contract was made.
53 END QUOTE
54 And
Page 15

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
4 are intimately allied to this question.
5 END QUOTE
6 .
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is considered by all
10 of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic concern. We do not want to interfere
11 with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a
12 thing as this it must be the Federal Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will
13 introduce the greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen.
14 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are
15 intimately allied to this question.
16 [start page 192]

17 END QUOTE
18 .
20 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
21 The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their
22 contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-
23 matter of them, it can do so.
24 END QUOTE
25 .
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. SYMON.-Why should you interfere with the laws in the different colonies affecting the relations
29 of masters and servants, which are purely a matter of domestic legislation? Why should you hand over
30 that purely state function to the federal authority?
31 END QUOTE
32 And
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. SYMON.-My honorable friend will hand that over to the Federal Parliament. I do not want to hand
36 over to the Federal Parliament too many of these difficulties. This, in my view, should be solved by the local
37 authorities themselves. They are the people to deal with their own questions of industrialism. I do not want to
38 enter into a discussion as to the modes of carrying out this proposal; that will be a matter for the Federal
39 Parliament if we decide to introduce this power. But I will put to my honorable friend what is a practical
40 question in connexion with this power. Who is to decide as to when an industrial dispute extends beyond the
41 limits of a state? Who is to decide when a dispute originating in South Australia enters into the colony of
42 Victoria, so that Victoria shall be put under some kind of martial law?
43 Mr. ISAACS.-It is a question of fact, like anything else.

44 END QUOTE
45 And
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. SYMON.-What relation has this to customs duties? The industrial life of the state is considered by all
49 of us (subject to this exception, it may be) a thing of purely domestic concern. We do not want to interfere
50 with the domestic life, or with industrial life, except in the last resort. If you are going to introduce such a
51 thing as this it must be the Federal Ministry which will have to decide, subject to the Parliament, and you will
52 introduce the greatest complication and intensity of feeling that was ever seen.
53 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
54 are intimately allied to this question.
55 END QUOTE
Page 16
1 .
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
5 but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
6 END QUOTE
7
8 While the Victorian Parliament allegedly referred industrial legislative powers to the
9 commonwealth, again, without the approval of a State referendum this purported referral of
10 legislative powers never had any legal basis. As such, all and any federal legislation purportedly
11 this purported reference of industrial legislative powers is ULTRA VIRES.
12 This also then applies to the Fair Works Commission decision regarding the same.
13
14 We then have to look at what I did set out in supplement 26 that once the Commonwealth
15 legislate upon a certain matter then the States no longer possesses any “concurrent” legislative
16 powers. Where however the purported referral of legislative powers was invalid then obviously
17 the Commonwealth never could be deemed to have exercised any legislative powers in regard of
18 that. As such, the States alone retain their legislative powers.
19
20 While the High Court of Australia sought to rely upon Ss51(xx) powers, this however clearly is
21 defeated with the above quotations. It was not that the Framers of the constitution desired the
22 commonwealth to take over every facet of corporations but merely to have it organised as to
23 registrations and issues like that, not the workforce itself. I have extensively written about these
24 issue published at my Scribd blog and as such will not now delve into all the issues further other
25 then to state that it has to be decided if the Commonwealth exercises “exclusive” powers or the
26 State remains to have “exclusive powers” but no nonsense both are legislating for the same.
27
28 This is also relevant as to the COVID HOAX.
29
30 I will briefly return to religious issues:
31
32 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
33 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any
34 religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall
35 be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
36
37 This specifically relates to the Commonwealth and not the States. However, we also have:
38
40 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
41 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
42 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
43 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
44 the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
45 END QUOTE
46 And
48 QUOTE
55 END QUOTE
56
Page 17

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the
4 Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not
5 going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. We are
6 going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state at present has the power
7 to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not disturb
8 that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-
9 riding power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall
10 observe for religious reasons, and what day they shall not observe for that purpose.
11 The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law it likes under my scheme.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 The latter quotation makes it very clear that when it comes to industrial relations to govern
15 shopping hours the State can dictate observance of religious work free days, however it cannot
16 override the embedded legal principle of “religious liberty”. Meaning if the State’s were to be
17 deemed to have not constitutionally in a valid manner having referred legislative powers
18 regarding industrial issues to the Commonwealth then the State(s) can still legislate as to
19 business hours, etc, however, if it was deemed it did validly refer industrial legislative powers to
20 the Commonwealth (not that I seek to imply it did) then the States have to but out all together.
21
22 Why is this relevant to the Premier Daniel Andrews omnibus issue? Well, to show that if you are
23 considering certain legislation then you need to have a proper grasp (knowledge/understanding)
24 how the legal principles embed in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
25 apply.
26
27 Having set out the above let us look at the wording “peace, order and good government” which I
28 understand the High Court of Australia held were not relevant or no relevant meaning.
29
30 Section 51 is dominated with this terminology:
32 QUOTE
33 Part V—Powers of the Parliament
34 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
35 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
36 make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
37 Commonwealth with respect to:
38 END QUOTE
39
40 HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
42 QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
43 I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
44 evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
45 they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
46 commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
47 powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
48 The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
49 Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
50 not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
51 order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
52 contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
Page 18
1 commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
2 parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
3 legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
4 sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
5 government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
6 consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
7 better not be left out of the bill altogether.
8 The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
9 Committee.
10 Amendment negatived.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Again:
14 The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
15 commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could
16 confer any powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
21 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
22 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
23 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
24 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
25 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
26 END QUOTE
27
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
31 Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
32 Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the Federal Parliament thought
33 fit.
34 Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative on the point. I see that,
35 according to the provision I have quoted, there is power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money on
36 the credit of the Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the expenditure of
37 that money except the limitation which would be specified in the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the
38 money. Of course, these words cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and in
39 such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is there anything anywhere to prevent a
40 Loan Act being passed by the Federal Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the
41 proceeds of which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the states according to their
42 needs, or upon some other principle?
43 Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

44 Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
45 of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
46 END QUOTE
47 .
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to
51 the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that
52 we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power
53 over us.
54 END QUOTE

Page 19
1 .
3 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
4 The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
5 the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE
10 Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
11 of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
12 Mr. HOLDER.-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:-
13 The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to make
14 laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, with respect to all or any of the
15 matters following.
16 Well, that includes the borrowing of money.

17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. ISAACS.-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52 we find these
22 governing words on the very forefront of that clause-
23 That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to
24 make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth.
25 We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states . We have our
26 Constitution framed in this way with a Senate to guard what? The interests of the states, so that the
27 Commonwealth shall not intrude one inch into what is retained as the executive rights and jurisdiction
28 of the states.
29 END QUOTE
30 (Note the NSW Kable case is clear about the jurisdictional issue as well as that I in AEC v
31 Schorel-Hlavka on 4 August 2005 defeated the Commonwealth in seeking to interfere with State
32 judicial matters.)
33
35 QUOTE
36 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws which
37 can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth.
38 END QUOTE
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. ISAACS.-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52
43 we find these governing words on the very forefront of that clause-
44 That Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power
45 and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
46 Commonwealth.
47 We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states.
48 END QUOTE
49

Page 20

3 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
4 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
5 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
6 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
7 embrace and unite.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Again:
11
13 QUOTE
14 A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution,
15 which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
16 government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
17 embrace and unite.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 And let us consider again:
21
23 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
24 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
25 that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
26 trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
27 clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
28 harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
29 too much care has not been exercised.
30 END QUOTE
31 .
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
35 in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
36 make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
37 Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
38 the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
39 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
40 for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
41 States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
42 Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
43 have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
44 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given
45 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
46 direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
47 there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
48 END QUOTE
49 .
50 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
51 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
52 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
53 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
54 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
55 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Page 21
1 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
2 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
3 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
4 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
5 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
6 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
7 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
8 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
9 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
10 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
11 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
12 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
13 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
14 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
15 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
16 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
17 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
18 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
19 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
20 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
21 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
22 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
23 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
24 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
25 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
26 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
27 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
28 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
29 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
30 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
31 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
32 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
33 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Therefore whatever the High Court of Australia wrongly claimed about the wording “peace,
37 order and good government” those are wording of limitations and the High Court of Australia
38 has no judicial powers to amend the constitution merely because so to say it may serve its
39 political masters.
40
41 Therefore the wording “peace, order and good government” are a limitation.
42
43 As I already did set out in supplement 26 also is that the States are “subject to this constitution”
44 meaning the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)!
45 It also means that the States are bound to also have a responsible government system.
46
48 QUOTE
49 Clause 57 (Royal assent to bills).
50 Mr. DIBBS: The second portion of this clause seems to me to be a novelty in responsible government. Is
51 the governor-general to be the governor-general and executive? The latter portion of the clause seems to me
52 to be perfectly useless.
53 Mr. MUNRO: Some verbal amendments may be required to be made in a bill!
54 Clause agreed to.

55 END QUOTE
Page 22
1
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible government
5 in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE
10 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What is the way to do it I am not now considering. But I hope I am not
11 misunderstood in calling attention to that difficulty as likely to arise. I believe myself that the system which
12 we call responsible government is the best that has yet been invented in the history of the world for carrying
13 on the good government of the people, and I hope that it will be instituted in the Federal Government of
14 Australia..
15 END QUOTE
16
18 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
19 . I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
20 and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
21 responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
22 view the formation of true responsible government.
23 END QUOTE
24
26 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
27 There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line
28 would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of
29 responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child
30 of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the
31 liberties of our people-then,
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Those quotations are mere some of many but it should be clear that the states/Territories are to
35 be also “responsible government(s)”
36
37 Obviously the Government is responsible to the people. In the Commonwealth environment it
38 means to the whole of the Commonwealth. In the State environment it is to the people of the
39 state. Obviously not all citizens could fit in a House of the Parliament and neither is this required
40 because the citizens in each particular jurisdiction have elected their representatives. Therefore,
41 the representatives (Members of the Parliament) are the once who have to supervise the relevant
42 government to act within the powers of the legislative provisions and not despite of them. As
43 such, there always must be a Parliament existing. No government can willy nilly suspend any
44 Parliament as to prevent it to exercise an oversight of the conduct of the executives. (Consider
45 the High Court in the United Kingdom finding that PM Boris Johnson had no legal position to
46 have the Parliament prorogued by the Queen, as to avoid supervision by the Parliament, etc)
47
48 State supreme Court has all judicial powers regarding any loegal issues and the Legislature
49 cannot interfere with this or diminish the judicial powers of the Supreme Court. It would require
50 a State referendum to amend the constitution to demish the State’s Supreme Court judicial
51 powers.
52
53 Therefore the Omnibus Bill that is before the Victorian Parliament cannot be deemed
54 constitutionally valid, this is because it seeks to deny the Supreme Court of Victoria judicial
55 powers. It should be understood that the Executive can only act within the legal provisions that
56 the Parliament enacted but any legislation that was enacted by violates the separation of power as
Page 23
1 I indicated in Supplement 26 is ULTRA VIRES as if violated constitutional required separation

2 of powers.
3
4 There is also an issue of alleged discrimination on basis of race, religion, sex, etc.
5
8 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
9 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
10 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole
11 of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
12 END QUOTE
13 And
15 QUOTE
22 END QUOTE
23
25 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
26 It is not something separate from the other portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first
27 volume of his work:-
28 The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal
29 discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to
30 cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex,
31 or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision
32 shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If
33 a discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this
34 as falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly
35 express it.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 The latter quotation however falls now within the Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) where
39 discrimination based upon mental competence of a person is subject to Commonwealth law.
40 (Consider also (xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions;)
41
42 And as I indicated already in Supplement 26 the States have no legislative powers as to any
43 “man-kind” “infectious” diseases and as such the Victorian Omnibus would fails on that already.
44 After all the entire “motive” of the Omnibus Bill is to deal with “infectious” diseases.
45
46 One has to question would it make sense for a law to demand people to compulsory wear a mask
47 where someone may suffer from HIV? Is that going to justify some farmer driving a tractor on
48 his farm to be restricted in oxygen intake? Would it make sense that if a person (including a
49 child) suffers from a non-infectious disease then nevertheless were to be in lockdown/curfew,
50 etc, let alone an entire State?
51 The very purpose of the omnibus is to restrain people upon the say so of the Premier regardless if
52 there may be any medical justification for it.
53 The Omnibus Bill effectively could be used (if enacted) that the Premier could simply have all
54 opposition members arrested so as to prevent them to speak out about political and other matters
55 that are opposing the Premiers own views. This clearly would offend the “political liberty”
56 enshrined in the constitution.
Page 24
1
2 When then one has announcements of 25 people having died but without clarification as to why
3 they died but somehow used to argue for restrictions when I understand on average some 400
4 people a day die in the commonwealth of Australia due to all kind of causes then to selectively
5 pick out some number without clarifying the cause of death is in my view utterly and sheer
6 ridiculous. In particular the past conduct must be taken into account of the ongoing deception
7 used.
8
9 One also has to consider that Premier Daniel Andrews claims that the power should be with him
10 as the Premier and not with the Chief health Officer, and I for one wrote about this extensively
11 that a public servant like the Chief Health Officer cannot be allowed to wield executive powers
12 but only administrative powers. As such, to some extent the Premier seems to agree with what I
13 write in the past. Perhaps it was my writings that he went on the different course. However, he
14 must still follow proper constitutional applicable system as to be overseen by a Parliament,
15 which it cannot do if it is suspended/adjourned with no ability to hold any Minister accountable.
16 There is no proper governance if the Parliament cannot hold the executives accountable.
17
18 Also where the omnibus legislation seeks to thwart the embedded liberties of the constitution
19 such as religious political liberties by trying to have State legislation that reportedly a person can
20 be imprisoned for up to 2 years for expressing political/religious objections also should indicate
21 that this is an Omnibus Bill for TERRORISM not for governance within “peace, order and good
22 governance”.
23
25 Convention)
26 QUOTE
27 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am taking
28 now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his surmise is
29 quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on
30 whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and
31 wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some provision
32 in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated. We have
33 been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 With the Bill being presented to the parliament to prevent proper scrutiny itself is a form of
37 TERRORISM!
38
39 Obviously to allow corporations (which fall within s51(xx) to unconstitutionally demand
40 employees to be vaccinated itself should have been halted by the Commonwealth and
41 corporations are using federal legal provisions to be registered and yet defies the constitutional
42 rights of employees!
43
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
47 END QUOTE
48
49 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
51 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
52 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
53 END QUOTE
54
Page 25
1 QUOTE
2 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
3 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
4 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
5 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
9 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
10 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
12 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
13 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
14 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
15 END QUOTE
16
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
20
21 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
22 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
23 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
24 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 What ought to be clear is that Scott Morrison unable to force any compulsory vaccinations as he
28 seems to have himself acknowledged in writing on 21 August 2021 he then unconstitutionally
29 seeks the States/Territories and so private businesses to enforce his unconstitutional dirty work.
30 This I view should never be permitted. One has to ask, if one were to desire to enter a
31 supermarket, post office or work place and the business owner/employer were to demand you cut
32 of a finger or you arm or leg if that were to be deemed a reasonable demand? I do not think so.
33 Well, being jabbed with a unauthorized “commercial” so called vaccine that can cause serious
34 injuries and even death surely is no lesser an unconstitutional/unlawful demand!
35 No one should be required to place his/her life at risk for an “unapproved” “commercial” so
36 called vaccination ( as only sponsor provided so called vaccines were provisionally approved for
37 “clinical trials” only. merely because the employer/shop keep pursues it to avoid some huge fine
38 by the State. Again, if the State is deemed to have transferred legislative powers to the
39 Commonwealth (This I do not imply eventuated) then the States no longer have any legislative
40 powers as to industrial matters. Did Beech-Jones J consider this also?
41
42 If the State(s) however never referred validly the industrial relation powers to the
43 Commonwealth then it would have legislative powers itself but barred from applying it to any
44 “man-kind” “infectious” diseases for which QUARANTINE might be required as then the
45 Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) is the legal provision to deal with matter. As such, any form of
46 restraint used by a State relating to any “pandemic”/”man-kind” disease is unconstitutional as it
47 falls within the “exclusive” legislative powers of the Commonwealth. The Biosecurity Act 2015
48 (Cth) does not permit the Federal Minister for health to delegate his powers and so any purported
49 delegation of power by the Minister for Age care to the States/Territories is clearly unlawful and
50 without legal force.
51
52 It should not be ignored that for example South Australia mandates of having to respond to some
53 mobile call within 15 minutes, etc, I view is unconstitutional as it also is to pursue some State
54 power in violation to the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) “exclusive” powers.
55

Page 26
1 It ought to be clear that when it comes to “peace, order and good government” none of those
2 mandates/legislation would succeed to prove to be so. If anything Victoria with its longest
3 lockdown in the world proved that despite of this the number of claimed “cases” reached
4 reportedly 2,295 in a day! Hardly showing that all those absurd mandates served any real
5 purpose other then to apply TERRORISM and DICTATORSHIP!
6
7 While there is a lot more that could be states against the omnibus issue for the moment I will
8 now address other matters.
9
10 I may briefly also raise the issue that while the Victorian Parliament appears to have provided for
11 the Registrar of titles to unilaterally change ownership of properties, this in my view would be
12 unconstitutional. It may seem to serve the purpose of the NEW WORLD ORDER and the
13 LockStep and/or Great Reset purposes but again the States were created within s106 “subject
14 to this constitution” and then the issue of just and proper compensation does apply for any
15 acquisition, for public purposes. The State would lack to have any powers to rob any property
16 owner of a property to merely serve it to some (enemy) foreign entity/power. We have faming
17 families who for generations build up their farm properties and somehow could now be reduced
18 to “renters” to work on their now former properties taken from them without any adequate
19 compensation? This might be the way the communist may contemplate to strip anyone of their
20 hard earned properties rights but this cannot be deemed legally valid and must be prevented to
21 eventuate.
22 The following is to indicate that both PM Scott Morrison and Premier Daniel Andrews received
23 my “20211029-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the
24 Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-26-State of Federal” documentation and as
25 such could/should be aware of my writings to you.
26
27 QUOTE EMAIL 19-10-2021 REPLY FROM Premier Daniel Andrew’s Office
28 Automatic reply: See attachment 20211029-Mr G. H. Schorel-
29 Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of the Australian
30 Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-26-State of Federal
From Daniel Andrews
To Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Date Fri 23:55
31
32 Message Body
33 Thank you for taking the time to contact the Premier, Daniel Andrews.
34
35 We appreciate your patience as we work through the large amount of correspondence the Premier
36 receives.
37
38 If you suspect you may have coronavirus (COVID-19), please call the Victorian Government
39 Coronavirus Hotline on 1800-675-398 (open 24/7). If you need an interpreter, please call TIS
40 National on 131 450.
41
42 Alternatively, for all information relating to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Victoria, please
43 visit:
44 https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/
45
46 For the latest media releases from the Andrews Labor Government visit:
47 https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/#results
48
49 A reply to your letter can take as long as eight to ten weeks to process for a response. Comments,
50 suggestions and ideas will be carefully considered, and we will make every effort to provide a
Page 27
1 response where needed. Your email may also be referred to relevant Ministers, or other MPs for
2 their consideration. Correspondence containing offensive or inappropriate content will not receive a
3 response.
4
5 To stay up to date with Labor's positive plans for Victoria visit:
6 https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/
7
8 Office of the Hon Daniel Andrews MP
9 Premier of Victoria
10 1 Treasury Place, East Melbourne VIC 3002
11 p: (03) 9651 5000 | w: premier.vic.gov.au
12 e: daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
13 END QUOTE EMAIL 19-10-2021 REPLY FROM Premier Daniel Andrew’s Office
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 The Greg Hunt-John Skerritt video:
21
22 https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=484115419323146
23 Greg Hunt MP on Facebook Watch

Page 28
1
2 I am going to be very honest that in my view TGA John Skerrit came across to me as some
3 charlatan trying to sell snake oil rather then a competent person who is involved in very critical
4 work to prevent undue loss of life.
5
6 The following is my own understanding about the video statements, with my comments added
7 Greg Hunt
8 DOUBLE VAX CAN LEAVE AUSTRALIA
9
10 Note; There has been various reports such as Israel, Ireland, etc, that double vaxxed are still
11 becoming infected and can shed to others (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) and as such, Israel
12 has withdrawn the “Green pass” to freely participate in society of more than 1.5 million double
13 vaxxinated citizens as they MUST first have a booster shot. I understand that Israel also is now
14 in progress of a 4th jab. Medical doctors of Israelis hospitals are in videos making clear that up to
15 95% of those in hospital are DOUBLE VAXXED and I understand now also those already
16 having the booster.
17
18 John Skerrit
19 From 12Y OLD,TRANSPLANT, ETC
20 Not just us saying more than a dozen global studies enforce
21 studies in Israel (selectively)
22 FDA- no no votes (selective)
23
24 Note: There are conflicting reports that some bloodbanks do not accept blood donations from
25 those who are jabbed due to the changes of the blood. It appears that to provide a blood
26 transfusion from blood from a jabbed person can result in severe harm to an unvaccinated person
27 and even cause death. Also risk regarding transplant. Patients who were treated with
28 ivermectin/HCQ appear to be less likely to cause such problems.
29 John Skerritt seemed to me to selectively refer to Israel but not revealing really the overall
30 situation. This I view was a serious deceptive comment. The same with the FDA no no vote, as
31 one abstained because of serious concerns. It is very important that when referring to a vote it is
32 not so to say taken out of context and pretends it is all OK. Also, there is a vide where there were
33 some kind of zoom conference and one clearly states not to raise certain issues. It seems to me to
34 be appalling when dealing with the health and wellbeing and even the lives of people one would
35 somehow limit any discussion to avoid possible issues of concern being raised. While John
36 Skerritt may refer to more than a dozen global studies it is meaningless when you do not know if
37 he is so to say sucking it out of his thumb. After all my elaborate writings constantly refer to
38 videos, reports, etc, with links for those desiring to check them that they can do so.
39
40 Greg Hunt
41 subject to consent process, residential care booster No requirement but will be added
42 to the immunisation register
43 No requirement but will be added to the immunisation register
44 99.8% Residential age care (vaxxed)
45 Medical Advise-leave that up to the States and Territories
46 Booster-just adds too
47
48 Note: Why would anyone want the risk of a booster and risk to become serious injured or even
49 die merely “just to add to”. Also Greg Hunt claiming to leave the Medical Advise up to the
50 States is utterly and totally wrong, this as it falls within the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) and not
51 the States and Territories to determine issues. I am very concerned that 99.8% of residents, etc,
Page 29
1 were jabbed as most likely never even grasped what it was about and neither do I view anyone
2 could have provided “informed” consent. Indeed, there ought to be a proper video recorded
3 investigation of any person who provided consent for someone to be jabbed as to what they
4 understood it was about. More than likely people were coerced into agreeing to have someone to
5 be jabbed or threatened to be denied any contact with a particular resident. I read reports that it is
6 unwise to even jab frail elderly people as it may only hasten their deaths. Oop, that might be
7 really the motive of the jabbing, as I understand it to be. I neither accept that the Commonwealth
8 should have any immunization register as in my view it is outside its legislative powers. I
9 understand there is a rumor that if you have not objected by 27 October 2021 against being on
10 the commonwealth Register then you will be deemed to have consented to be on it. Well, the
11 commonwealth has in my view no legislative powers in the first place and cannot use some
12 backdoor way to create something without my consent.
13
14 John Skerrit
15 Not diagnostic test-screening test
16 States & Territories concerned they roll out their own policies
17 Jan-Feb we didn't know duration of protection
18 No one knows the duration past this booster
19 Delta- we haven't needed to change the booster
20 We have to wait and see (Re Booster)
21
22 Note: For so far I understand it, including from video recording of the inventor of the PCR test,
23 that the PCR test is NOT, I repeat NOT a diagnostic tool! If John Skerrit lacks even the basic
24 understanding what a PCR test is about then surely I couldn’t trust him to make any competent
25 decision regarding other matters. In fact, I understand that the TGA recommended 40-45 cycles
26 for the PCR swab to be tested where as I understand the correct cycles is 17. A major difference.
27 This then question the validity of any PCR testing results. Considering that those PCR test
28 results was used to justify all kinds of non-scientific mandates then surely; HOUSTON WE
29 HAVE A PROBLEM. And John Skerritt seems to acknowledge that in January-February he
30 didn’t even know about the duration of the protection of any vaccination. Well, if he had
31 considered the numerous scientific reports that are on the internet then he might just have
32 understood it was a gamble with people’s health and wellbeing and even their lives. While he
33 claims that no one knows the duration of the booster, I understand from medical doctors that they
34 already are having Israelis ending up in hospital even so having already had a booster. Why “We
35 have to wait and see” when already the information is forthcoming? And as to the Delta variant
36 there are scientist making clear that this is the result from those being jabbed. More variants and
37 in the end a super variant, or more of them, will be created due to the vaccines, in likely a similar
38 manner as the “super bugs” in hospitals were. As for the “States & Territories concerned they
39 roll out their own policies” as far as I understand it this is a Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) limited
40 system and the States & Territories have to but out. They have no legislative/executive powers to
41 interfere.
42
43 Greg Hunt
44 Booster program ready to go-work with States & Territories
45 First dose, second dose booster shotS
46
47 Note: What I understand was that Greg Hunt was referring to singular “First dose” then singular
48 “second dose” and then plural “booster shots” as such indicating that more than one booster will
49 be added and this perhaps “just adds too”, as if there might be a long list of booster shots to
50 come, like with influenza vaccines, etc.
51
Page 30
1 John Skerrit
2 5 studies about pregnancies
3 5 studies have no known impact on pregnancies
4 No evidence to suggest boosters would be any different
5 studies more confident about mix and match
6
7 Note: While John Skerrit refers to pregnancy reports I for one read reports that more than 2,000
8 unborn children ended up death! That certainly may assist to depopulation when killing the
9 unborn child in the womb. To claim that no evidence exist that boosters would be any difference
10 I view is to conceal the real harm already inflicted. And as to the “mix and match” of different
11 products referred to as vaccines, well I understand that some jurisdictions already have
12 denounced to mix and match.
13
14 Greg Hunt
15 Australia first in world to commence whole population booster
16 One of the most protected countries
17 (Re unvaccinated) State can request- subject to 2 weeks Quarantine
18 Entirely a matter for the State
19 No Jab, No Play policy in Victoria (Re Tennis)
20 (Victoria) a matter for them to resolve
21 (Commonwealth willing to give) Exemption on major events basis
22 Pfizer available to Pharmacies-Moderna to GP's
23
24 Note: As I understand it Israel is the first country to pursue the entire population to be given not
25 just the booster but also a second booster and possible further boosters every couple of months or
26 so. And Israel is a clear example not to be one of the most protected countries as the sh*t is
27 already hitting the fan that despite this high vaccination rate the death toll after jabbing is sharply
28 rising. Ho0w on earth can he justify a “No Jab, No Play policy in Victoria” when it is a federal
29 issue. Also to discriminate as to if a State wants to have exemptions on major events. Laws
30 should be UNIFORM throughout Australia, that is what the framers of the constitution
31 embedded in the constitution as a legal principle. Not favoritism.
32
33 John Skerrit
34 (children) even deeper- we (consider) safety for every age group
35 (Re booster for kids) We seen not red flags but early days yet
36
37 Note: again it seems to me that John Skerritt is lacking to have sufficient information available to
38 him, being it he cannot bother or perhaps he is not provided with it. I for one have read ample of
39 articles about the harm upon the young. I even have images iof the young who die after having
40 been jabbed!
41
42 Greg Hunt
43 We continue to follow international science
44
45 Note: In my view, if Greg Hunt really followed international science then he should know about
46 the ramped death toll that are reported after people have been jabbed! My past supplements have
47 elaborately referred to “INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE” and to follow “INTERNATIONAL
48 SCIENCE” in my view should have resulted as to immediately terminate any “clinical trials”!
49
50 https://www.sott.net/article/460023-Australian-officials-refuse-to-release-vaccination-
51 status-of-Victorias-25-Covid-deaths
52 Australian officials refuse to release vaccination status
53 of Victoria's 25 'Covid deaths'
Page 31
1
2
3 https://www.sott.net/article/460120-Them-and-us-Vaccine-passport-rules-for-public-but-not-
4 world-leaders-at-COP26-spark-outrage-over-dual-Covid-standards
5 'Them and us': Vaccine passport rules for public but not
6 world leaders at COP26 spark outrage over dual Covid
7 standards
8  COP26 & The Great Reset: The not so glorious prospect of owning nothing and passing
9 a cold, 'dark winter'
10  Rules for thee, not for me: Psaki defends Biden after he's busted violating DC mask
11 rules
12  Rules for thee, but not for me: Maskless 2021 Emmys defended by Los Angeles County
13 after criticism over lack of COVID-19 safety protocols
14  Rules for thee but not for me: San Francisco Mayor London Breed breaks mask
15 mandate at club
16  'Rules for Thee' dept: Members of Congress & staffs exempt from Biden's federal
17 vaccine mandate
18  'Rules for thee, but not for me': Here's a list of lawmakers who broke COVID rules
19
20 https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=185825
21 Nicholas Veniamin: A list / Links for exposing the

22 crime of the century
23 QUOTE
24 A list / Links for exposing the crime of the century
25 CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Page 32
1 ♦️Agenda 21
2 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
3 ♦️Agenda 30
4 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%2
5 0Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
6 ♦️Agenda 50
7 https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27672/GEO6_CH20.pdf?sequence
8 =1&isAllowed=y
9 ♦️Cyberpolygon 2021
10 https://cyberpolygon.com/upload/technical_training_Cyber_Polygon_2021_EN_v_1.pdf
11 ♦️Covid 19 - The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab.

12 https://carterheavyindustries.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/covid-19_-the-great-reset-klaus-
13 schwab.pdf
14 ♦️Event 201
15 https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
16 ♦️Operation Dark Winter

17 https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-
18 winter/Dark%20Winter%20Script.pdf
19 ♦️Operation Crimson Contagion.

20 https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/policy_planning/Board_of_Health/B
21 OH_Presentation_Sep182019.pdf
22 ♦️Operation Lockstep, Rockefeller Foundation

23 https://stopbsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/The-Annotated-Rockefeller-
24 Foundation-Lockstep-2010.pdf
25 ♦️Operation Cygnus, UK Government

26 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
27 ta/file/927770/exercise-cygnus-report.pdf
28 ♦️Influenza Preparedness Plan, UK Government

29 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
30 ta/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf
31 ♦️National Pandemic Influenza Plan, US CDC

32 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pandemic-influenza-implementation.pdf
33 ♦️Spars Pandemic (2025-2028)

34 The next event.
35 https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=jicrcr
36 ♦️Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Storage (March 2020)

37 https://health.mo.gov/emergencies/panflu/pdf/panfluplanvaccine.pdf
38 ♦️Coronavirus Act 2020

39 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/pdfs/ukpga_20200007_en.pdf

Page 33
1 ♦️Planetary Emergency Plan; Club of Rome

2 https://web.archive.org/web/20191208022814/https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-
3 content/uploads/2019/09/PlanetaryEmergencyPlan_CoR-4.pdf
4 @F¥CKtheNewWorldQrder
5 CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
6 GENOCIDE
7 TERRORISM
8 TREASON
9 HIGH CRIMES
10 🔥HUMAN TRAFFICKING
11 🔥HUMAN FARMING
12 🔥CHILD SEX | PEDOPHILIA
13 🔥ADRENOCHROME
14 GLOBALISTS are SATANISTS
15 GLOBALISTS are TERRORISTS
16 WHERE THEY GO ONE

17 THEY GO ALL
18 TO TRIBUNAL
19 @NicholasVeniamin
20 END QUOTE
21
22 https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/10/10/the-vaccine-mandate-is-a-hoax/
23 The Vaccine Mandate Is a Hoax

24 QUOTE
25 October 10, 2021 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article
26 The Vaccine Mandate Is a Hoax

27 Paul Craig Roberts
28 Dear Readers, Below is a collection of articles that will help you to understand: (1) the
29 danger of the vaccine compared to the danger of Covid and (2) the power Big Pharma has
30 to bypass safety standards in order to maximize profits.
31 As for Biden’s “vaccine mandate,” no such mandate exists. The US president is not a
32 dictator and cannot issue laws or edicts. Any such laws or edicts originating in the White
33 House would be struck down by federal courts. Congress is the source of law. Even if
34 Congress passed a vaccine mandate and Biden signed it, if the courts follow the
35 Constitution the law would be struck down.
36 Even more importantly, any mandate or law that violates informed consent is a violation of
37 the Nuremberg Laws used to execute German National Socialists after World War II for
38 violating informed consent in their medical experiments.
Page 34
1 Biden’s “mandate” was nothing but a press release statement encouraging private
2 employers to do what the President of the US cannot do and issue vaccine mandates to
3 employees. But, of course, private employers have no legislative power. They certainly
4 have no legal authority to violate the Nuremberg laws.
5 The Biden “mandate” is just another hoax relying on the whore media to make it a fact.
6 When your employer tells you, whether you are a nurse or a software engineer or Walmart
7 cashier, that you must accept what is without doubt a dangerous injection or be fired, sue
8 him when he fires you.
9 All fired employees can join a master civil lawsuit that has the possibility of bankrupting
10 the corrupt employers who collaborate in breaking US and international laws.
11 Here is the chance for a real revolution. The establishment is on the wrong side of the law.
12 Once the morons fire massive numbers of people, the morons will be in the dock. If the
13 federal courts also abandon the Constitution, US law, international law, and the people, the
14 only recourse is violent revolution. As the people vastly outnumber the criminal
15 establishment, the employers could end up hanging off of lamp posts where the people
16 increasingly think they belong.
17
18 Virus Dangers vs. Vaccine Dangers – Fact Sheet
19 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/no_author/virus-dangers-vs-vaccine-dangers-fact-
20 sheet/
21
22 Why Vaccine Injuries Are Rarely Reported
23 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/joseph-mercola/practical-reasons-why-vaccine-
24 injuries-are-rarely-reported/
25
26 “We’re in the Middle of a Major Biological Catastrophe” — Dr Peter McCullough
27 The Political & Medical Establishments Intend to Kill Us Off. Do Not Take the Jab. Your
28 health and your life are worth more than your job.
29 https://www.globalresearch.ca/were-middle-major-biological-catastrophe-covid-expert-dr-
30 peter-mccullough/5757987
31
32 The Incidence of Cancer, Triggered by the Covid 19 “Vaccine”
33 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-incidence-of-cancer-triggered-by-the-covid-19-
34 vaccine/5758110
35
36 The FDA Protects Big Pharma, Not Us
37 https://www.globalresearch.ca/think-fda-looking-out-your-health-history-tells-different-
38 story/5758088
39
40 Big Pharma Owns the US Government
41 https://www.globalresearch.ca/pfizer-lobbying-hits-decade-high-dozens-high-profile-
42 political-appointees-become-big-pharma-reps/5758060
43
Page 35
1 Examining the Methods and Means of COVID Propaganda Dissemination

2 https://www.globalresearch.ca/examining-methods-means-covid-propaganda-
3 dissemination/5757979
4
5 The Vaccine Campaign Is a Mass Murder Campaign
6 https://www.globalresearch.ca/deaths-injuries-teens-increase-covid-19-shots-pfizer-asks-
7 fda-emergency-authorization-inject-5-11-year-olds/5758043
8
9 The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People
10 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-killer-vaccine-worldwide-7-9-billion-people/5749363
11
12 Emergency Physician Dr. Rochagné Kilian Exposes Health Care Corruption
13 https://www.globalresearch.ca/did-we-ever-ask-granny-dr-rochagne-kilian-exposes-health-
14 care-corruption/5758013
15
16 COVID Vaccine Contents, What’s Inside the Vial? Scientific Findings Reveal
17 Microscopy Images
18 https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-vax-contents-2-more-docs-reveal-findings-
19 microscopy-images/5758000
20 END QUOTE
21
22 https://cairnsnews.org/2021/10/28/dr-michael-mcdowell-the-genetic-bioweapon-the-vaccine-and-covid-19/
23 Dr. Michael McDowell: “The Genetic Bioweapon, The Vaccine, And COVID-19” | Cairns News
24 https://bandnewtube.com/watch/dr-michael-mcdowell
25 Dr. Michael McDowell - Genetic BIOWEAPONS unleashed by VIRUS, JABS and the
26 VACCINATED!
27 At 5.:37:55 mark or 7_04 of the video the good doctor explains the involvement of
28 Australia laboratory in creating SARS-CoV-2.
29 At 5:44:23 the doctor explains about creating a FRANKENSTEIN monster.
30
31 While the issue of being a bioweapon might not have been part of the consideration of His
32 Honour Beech-Jones, nevertheless it is a crucial issue, this as if unlawful bioweapon was used as
33 being a vaccine then it would have to be unlawful, regardless what States otherwise might have
34 claimed.
35
36 https://www.bitchute.com/video/iNeJFqQ0TxYS/
37 VAXXED patients' blood examined, horrific findings revealed by German physicians!
38 The video itself shows how the blood has undergone serious alterations!
39
40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukjlCTaSdL8
41 What About The Children? The looming epidemic in our young.
42
43 John Skerritt
44 2 Vaccinations is considered full vaccinated
45 (Re over 65) give them a booster to give absolute coverage
46 important for the economy
47
48 Note: John Skerritt stated that 2 vaccinations is considered full vaccinated but then also stated
49 that a booster gives absolute coverage. Again getting back to the Israelis vaccination processes
50 even after a booster they are still ending up in a hospital. So, giving a booster to give “absolute
51 coverage” doesn’t seem to go hand in hand with “fully vaccinated” and again the Israelis showed
52 that even a booster doesn’t do the job. As for the “importance for the economy” that to me is a
Page 36
1 “government policy” announcement not for a specialist of the TGA to be concerned about. This
2 in particular where the State Premiers decided to cripple the economy and so destroy many small
3 businesses, in addition the harm to health, wellbeing and even the lives of those crippled by the
4 mandates. If the importance of economy was a real issue then I would have expected a more
5 competent approach as to the entire COVID HOAX. It would have been far better, at least in my
6 view, to have let thing go on as like with any influenza outbreak and concentrate on the real issue
7 as to how to combat INFLUENZA and not some fake COVID.
8
9 https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vaccinated-people-could-become-covid-
10 19-super-spreaders/ar-BB1d7vfO
11 Vaccinated people could become Covid-19 super-spreaders
12
13 Greg Hunt
14 Booster- additional protection over and above
15 not a replacement for the PCR as John (Skerrit) pointed out (Re home test kits)
16 additional support-additional screening
17 pure screening tool and a diagnostic tool (Re PCR)
18 Two different purposes
19 One of the best protected societies
20
21 Note: When someone talks about “additional protection over and above” then to me that person
22 has lost the plot as to understand what jabbing is about. You do NOT place any person health,
23 wellbeing and even life at risk just for the sake of something to be “additional protection over
24 and above. Also, to claim that a PCR test another other home test are for two different purposes
25 may underline the lack of required understanding what it is all about. Again, PCR test is not to
26 my understanding any “diagnostic” test at all. It merely may collect something that could even,
27 as it did, show a deer or fruit to be infected with COVID, regardless it is not.
28 Anyone who has a dog or cat and were to do a PCR test on the animals would likely have a
29 positive test returned. Meaning, that being confined at home with domestic animals may actually
30 promote people to become ill, as with mask wearing.
31
32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7I21e-XOzk
33 Craig Kelly's full interview the Mainstream Media won't show you
34
35 Craig refer to rights enshrined in the constitution, and well we do have those rights but when you
36 have lawyers/judges/politicians betraying their duties and obligations of their offices then well
37 holding them legally accountable is the real solution.
38
39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xTbvtZGI-w
40 PERMANENT State of Emergency Legislation for Dan Andrews
41
42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPAKoVCmxHk
43 'Checks and balances are absent' under Victoria’s new proposed pandemic bill
44
Page 37
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs46dB_Jibw
2 Daniel Andrews ‘not just drunk on power’ but ‘abusing it’
3
4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xojGTIE57Y
5 The Heroic Last Stand of Victorian MP, Neil Angus
6 If we just had more of the kind of MP Neil Angus then much of the harm could have been
7 avoided.
8
9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxID34CvnBs
10 There are 'few people in Labor able to speak up' against Daniel Andrews
11 Michael Danby, former Labor MP I view makes it very clear that labor party members so to say
12 rather sell out the interest and wellbeing of constituents than to lose pre-selection for an election.
13
14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9pQbiqywI
15 Victoria government in 'secret' negotiations to obtain 'permanent emergency powers'
16 Where Premier Daniel Andrews was negotiating with cross benches in the Upper House to get
17 their support for the Bill then obviously where this took many months then there can be no issue
18 to it being urgent. After all he could have all along involved others. However, to keep secret
19 what he desired he simply was seeking to make deals. Obviously the question has to be what
20 deal did he make to so to say buy their approval for the Bill. It also may underline, as I view it,
21 that those who were on the cross benches were not the least interested in pursuing JUSTICE.
22
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL3BuMt8nv8
24 Victorians should be ‘filled with dread’ by Andrews’ proposed pandemic laws
25 Peta Credlin makes known she all along pursued a ROYAL COMMISSION and my writings
26 way back on 3 May 2020 also called for this.
27
28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2KQAPvRSyQ
29 'We’ve got a Labor government that’s completely out of control' Tim Smith
30
31
32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M
33 MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL
34
35 This is a cartoon type of video that I view is excellent in bringing across the issues conbcerned.
36
37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD71BKyciVU
38 Digital Identity Bill - Urgent!
39
40 This video in itself place in question the digital identity issue also.
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5

Page 39
1
2
3 https://www.sott.net/article/458799-Australian-govt-wants-SECRECY-protections-for-Covid-
4 cabinet-meetings
5 Australian gov't wants SECRECY protections for Covid
6 cabinet meetings
7 QUOTE
8 RT
9 Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:10 UTC
10 © REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstei
11 Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison
12 Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been accused of being "addicted to secrecy"
13 as the country's parliament debated a controversial proposed law that would
14 exempt the workings of its National Cabinet from public scrutiny.
15
16 The cabinet, comprised of the PM, state premiers and territory leaders, was formed in
17 response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The government claims that body's decisions
18 should be afforded the same protections from disclosure requests as the federal cabinet.
19
20 The issue came to the fore when the government refused a Freedom of Information
Page 40
1 (FOI) application by South Australian Independent Senator Rex Patrick relating to a

2 May 2020 National Cabinet meeting, arguing they were "an official record of the
3 cabinet."
4
5 An Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ruled against the government last month, but
6 top government officials continue to insist that the National Cabinet is a committee of the
7 federal ministerial cabinet and not subject to FOI requests.
8
9 Earlier this month, the government proposed legislation that would extend secrecy
10 protections in the FOI Act to all National Cabinet minutes and meetings, saying
11 "confidentiality of information and decision-making" is "critical" to its functioning.
12
13 Comment: Transparency is also "critical" to the functioning of reasonable
14 governance, however the Australian government's tyrannical actions throughout the
15 lockdown suggest that they're not too concerned with appearing reasonable.
16
17 On Monday, as the Senate's finance and public administration committee examined the
18 proposed law, Senator Patrick called it "delusional" and told the government to "cut the
19 crap."
20
21 "The prime minister is clearly absolutely addicted to secrecy and what he did was quite
22 disrespectful to the conventions, the longstanding conventions of responsible government
23 in Australia," Patrick told the Guardian.
24
25 New South Wales Senator Tim Ayres also questioned why the Senate would be
26 "persuaded by a set of arguments" that had already been "rejected entirely" by the
27 AAT.
28
29 Comment: As has been the case elsewhere in the world, if they aren't able to
30 'convince' the AAT, they'll simply do as they please regardless; perhaps they'll invoke
31 more emergency powers to enable them to do so.
32
33 Information Commissioner Angelene Falk expressed concern with the way the legislation
34 was drafted - arguing that it opened the door for the prime minister to cloak other
35 government bodies in secrecy by declaring them cabinet committees.
36
37 Falk also denied the government's claim that it had consulted her office when formulating
38 the legislation, saying she was unaware of any of her state and territory counterparts
39 being asked for their inputs to the bill.
Page 41
1
2 Meanwhile, the Australian Human Rights Commission told the Senate committee that the
3 proposed bill would increase levels of non-transparency across as many as 15
4 separate laws.
5
6 Noting that the proposed changes involve "permanent change(s) to confidentiality rules
7 over public policy," HRC President Rosalind Croucher said it was important that
8 "emergency situations do not become a broad justification for unnecessary increases in
9 executive power to the detriment of democracy."
10
11 Comment: And yet this is exactly what governments used them for, many of which
12 are intending to extend these 'emergency' powers well into next year, despite also
13 stating that their country is no longer on lockdown.
14
15 The Law Council of Australia - the top body representing the legal profession - has also
16 argued that the current FOI exemptions are sufficient to stop the disclosure of
17 information in cases where the risk of potential harm to national interests
18 outweighed the public interest.
19
20 Last week, Australia Capital Territory Chief Minister Andrew Barr - a member of the
21 National Cabinet - had called the legislation a "solution looking for a problem" and
22 disclosed that there were "not that many things" tackled by the body that could be
23 "considered so secretive as to not be able to be pretty freely discussed."
24
25 Comment: Evidently the cabinet has somethings it wants to hide:
26  'F**k the jab!': CHAOS in Australia as construction workers violently protest vaccine
27 mandate outside union HQ
28  'Reckless, fearmongering spin': Australia's female entrepreneurs slam tyrannical

29 lockdown measures
30  Psychologists accuse UK government of using 'unethical' fear tactics on people to

31 enforce lockdown
32  UK gov't kept 2016 coronavirus outbreak exercise SECRET, 1 of 10 unpublicized

33 pandemic planning exercises that took place in the 5 years before Covid-19
34 Also check out SOTT radio's:
35  NewsReal: Pandemic is Over! (If You Want it)
36  NewsReal: Is The Government Hyping Shortages? And is 'Vaccination Shedding' Really

37 a Thing?
38
39 END QUOTE
Page 42
1
2 Considering that on 8 August 23021 I commenced to file my complaint with the Australian
3 Federal Police that also requested a full investigation into the agreements/contracts that the
4 Federal government entered into with pharmaceutical companies which are allegedly hidden
5 within “NATIONAL SECURITY” is this meaning the AFP simply is waiting to get it all denied
6 as to prevent any investigation?
7 As I wrote about and published in the past at my Scribd blog that the Framers of the Constitution
8 held it essential that the media could report matters. After all, if Scott Morrison and others are
9 involved in a secret kickback deal so that he can succeed in a re-election then this very much is
10 of PUBLIC INTEREST. We cannot deny electors just before a federal election is due to be
11 denied to judge the Government of the Day as to what it has been up to.
12
13 WATSON v. LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374
14 QUOTE
15 "Where any statutory rules are required by any Act to be published or
16 notified in the Gazette, a notice in the Gazette of the rules having been
17 made, and of the place where copies of them can be purchased, shall be
18 sufficient compliance with that requirement." (at p379)
19
20 6. The primary means of notifying the terms of a regulation which has been
21 made is by its publication in full in the Gazette. What is required by HYPERLINK
22 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s48.html" s. 48
23 (1) is notification of the regulation, not of the fact of its making or of the
24 date of its making. In my opinion, the notification of a regulation involves
25 the bringing to notice of its actual terms. Thus, in my opinion, HYPERLINK
26 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s48.html" s. 48 (1) of
27 the HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/"
28 Acts Interpretation Act really requires the terms of the regulation to be
29 published in the Gazette. It must be accepted that such publication places the
30 citizen in the position of being able to inform himself of the terms of the
31 law by which he is to be bound. (at p379)
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Again:
35 It must be accepted that such publication places the citizen in the position of being
36 able to inform himself of the terms of the law by which he is to be bound.
37
38 We now have a Federal Government which entered in secret agreements with pharmaceutical
39 companies and yet the citizens who are used as guinea pigs are denied their right to be informed
40 what the agreements/contracts actually stand for. It means that those who become victims are
41 denied to be informed of their legal rights to sue. The Commonwealth in my view has absolutely
42 no constitutional position to deny citizens their ordinary rights to sue for any harm they suffered
43 and the Commonwealth can not claim “acquisition” for and on behalf of foreign pharmaceutical
44 companies. This is the Commonwealth cannot rob citizen of their legal rights where it is not for
45 PUBLIC PURPOSES. Here the interest of the private party is that like the High Court in a
46 N.S.W. builders case held that the State Government couldn’t take possession of a private
47 property so it then could hand over the property to a builder, so the builder would then build a
48 project for the State Government. I view the same applies here that the Commonwealth cannot
49 engage into something to benefit foreign corporations (pharmaceutical companies) to deny
50 citizens their rights. Neither can the Commonwealth demand that citizens are to sue the
51 Commonwealth instead on behalf of the foreign corporation as the citizens are entitled to
52 ordinary recourse of law.
Page 43
1 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
2 QUOTE
3 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

4 Misuse of Public Funds
5 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
6 The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public
7 funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose
8 when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
9 Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses
10 only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
11 ENDQUOTE
12
13 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081015&filename=led&sec_id=3&sid=
14 1
15 QUOTE
16 Travesty of public purpose
17
18 State governments offer incredulous incentives to lure Tata
19
20 IN THE last few days Maharashtra and West Bengal witnessed two diametrically opposite
21 developments. In Maharashtra, for the first time in the history of this country, affected
22 farmers voted in a referendum on the upcoming Reliance special economic zone (SEZ).
23 Initial results suggest that the majority voted against the SEZ. In Singur, Tata’s plans kept
24 slipping into a deeper imbroglio by the day. Several state governments lined up to lure the
25 company as Tata seriously considered moving out—each one trying to outdo each other in
26 terms of offering incentives and freebies. Soon as West Bengal made some parts of the
27 ‘secret’ deal between the state and the company public, Tata Motors moved the High Court
28 obtaining a restraining order.
29
30 Tata’s lawyers argued that basically the agreement between them and the state government
31 was a trade secret. This means that the Nano project is private commercial venture.
32 Ironically the state government had acquired land for the project invoking the “public
33 purpose” law. The state government and company will have to come clean about what
34 exactly is the Nano project. If it is a commercial venture the company must directly need
35 deal with the farmers. And if it is indeed a project meant to serve the public purpose,
36 details of the agreement must be immediately made public.
37
38 What is clear from the deal between the West Bengal government and Tata motors is that
39 state government are trying to outdo each other to attract investments. This is a race right
40 to the bottom. The moment Tata Motors threatened to walk away from Singur, several state
41 governments came forward. The lure of big-ticket project is such that governments are
42 willing to forgo taxes, forcibly acquire land, give subsidized water and electricity, give
43 capital subsidies and put thousands of security personnel to man the project. In all this,
44 industries are having free ride on public money. This is cheap industrialization. Where
45 not only states are giving fiscal subsidies, they are subsidizing the natural resources—
46 land, water, and energy. In a single economic entity that India is, competition
47 between states, by the way of subsidizing industrialization, is neither good for
48 economy nor is it good for environment. And it surely is not for ‘public purpose’.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
52 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
53 QUOTE
Page 44
1 In 1870, that is to say, subsequent to the issue of these orders, though prior to the trial of this case in
2 the court below, the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, in the
3 Page 83 U. S. 680
4 case of Whiting v. Fond du Lac County, [Footnote 1] held this act to be void, upon the ground that the
5 building of a railroad, to be owned and worked by a corporation in the usual way, was not an object
6 in which the public were interested, and therefore that the act in question was void, for the reason
7 that it authorized the levy of a tax for a private and not a public purpose. The court there said:
8 "The question is as to the power of the legislature to raise money or to authorize it to
9 be raised, by taxation, for the purpose of donating it to a private corporation. We
10 held, in Curtis v. Whipple, [Footnote 2] that the legislature possessed no such power, and
11 the conclusion in that case we think follows inevitably in this, from the principles stated in
12 the opinion.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 Seems to me the payments to a private corporations cannot be deemed to be for “public
16 purposes” where the entire deals are in secrecy and the public has no way of knowing how much
17 of their taxes are through backdoor manner channelled to those involved in making those
18 agreements. While Scott Morrison as a private person may (within the rule of law) engage to use
19 his own monies for whatever secret deals, it is another issue if he uses taxpayers monies to
20 unlawfully engage in deals and deny taxpayers any rights as to know what monies are involved.
21 Neither what special Appropriation Bills actually provided for the usage of taxpayers monies
22 from the Commonwealth consolidated Revenue funds.
23
24 http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/678/case.html
25 U.S. Supreme Court Olcott v. The Supervisors, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 678 678 (1872)
26 QUOTE
27 Page 83 U. S. 693
28 "The legislature cannot create a public debt, or levy a tax, or authorize a municipal corporation to
29 do so, in order to raise funds for a mere private purpose. It cannot, in the form of a tax, take the
30 money of the citizen and give it to an individual, the public interest or welfare being in no way
31 connected with the transaction. The objects for which the money is raised by taxation must be public,
32 and such as subserve the common interest and wellbeing of the community required to contribute. . .
33 . To justify the court in arresting the proceedings and declaring the tax void, the absence of all
34 possible public interest in the purposes for which the funds are raised must be clear and palpable; so
35 clear and palpable as to be perceptible by every mind AT THE FIRST BLUSH."
36 All these expositions of the law of the state were made by its highest court before the county orders now in
37 suit were issued. They certainly did assert that building a railroad, whether built by the state or by a
38 corporation created by the state for the purpose, was a matter of public concern, and that because it was a
39 public use, the right of eminent domain might be exerted or delegated for it, and taxation might be
40 authorized for its aid. It was the declared law of the state, therefore, when the bonds now in suit were
41 issued, that the uses of railroads, though built by private corporations, were public uses, such as warranted
42 the exercise of the public right of eminent domain in their aid, and also the power of taxation.
43 We are not, then, concluded by a decision, made in 1870, that such public uses are not of a nature to
44 justify the imposition of taxes. We are at liberty to inquire what are public uses, and what
45 restrictions, if any, are imposed upon the state's taxing power.
46 It is not claimed that the Constitution of Wisconsin contains any express denial of power in the legislature
47 to authorize municipal corporations to aid in the construction of railroads, or to impose taxes for that
48 purpose. The entire legislative power of the state is confessedly vested in the General Assembly. An
49 implied inhibition only is asserted.
50 Page 83 U. S. 694
51 It is insisted that, as the state cannot itself impose taxes for any other than a public
52 use, so the legislature cannot empower a municipal division of the state to levy and
53 collect taxes for any other than such a use,
54 END QUOTE
55
56 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php

Page 45
1 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

2 Misuse of Public Funds
3 QUOTE
4
5 Remember These Points
6  Expenditures must be for a public purpose
7  Expenditures must be authorized

8  Public funds may not be expended for personal use
9  Information must be fairly presented

10  Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
11 END QUOTE
12
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Commonwealth Parliament will be one of the parties to the purchase.
17 Mr. BARTON.-No; the Executive Government will be a party to the purchase. There must be some
18 authority to determine the mode of compensation. It is the second sub-section which provides for the
19 ascertaining. of the value. A separate sub-section makes provision for the manner of the compensation, that is
20 to say, whether the compensation shall be in cash or bonds, or in some other way. Clearly, the High Court
21 could not determine a matter of that kind. It is a matter of political arrangement between the Commonwealth
22 and the state.
23 Sir JOHN FORREST.-Will it be optional with the state to say whether property shall or shall not be
24 handed over?
25 Mr. BARTON.-If my right honorable friend will look at sub-section (3) he will see that it is not the state
26 but the Commonwealth which has this option. Of course, the Commonwealth, as a general rule, will not
27 take over property except such as is to be exclusively used for a service that has been transferred to it.
28 Sir JOHN FORREST.-The clause does not contain the words "with the consent of the state."
29 Mr. BARTON.-That is so, but you cannot carry a, sale into effect without knowing the price. The price is a
30 condition to be determined before the sale is made.
31 Sir JOHN FORREST.-I thought that where property was not to be used exclusively by the
32 Commonwealth there was to be no absolute power in the Commonwealth to take it over.
33 Mr. BARTON.-I understood that the feeling of the committee was that the Commonwealth should have
34 the option of saying whether it would or would not take over any property, but that the state should be able to
35 arrange with the Commonwealth as to the price to be paid for any property taken over. If the parties cannot
36 agree, the price is to be determined according to the law of the state in regard to the acquisition of property
37 for public purposes.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 Nothing in the debates as far as I can ascertain indicated the Commonwealth can take over any
41 liability of any foreign corporation to shield it against legal accountability of Australian laws.
42 The Commonwealth on the one hand seeks to let the States/Territories run the vaccination
43 programs but on the other hand seems to take it as it is the body that runs it all and is responsible
44 for all problems. This denied Australian taxpayers any say into the matter, this, even so the
45 Commonwealth ultimately will then be having taxpayers to pay for any compensation payments.
46
Page 46

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-I do not think that is likely. There would probably be some arrangement
4 made by which either the state or the Commonwealth would take over the whole building.
5 Then we come to the manner of compensation, which is to be decided by agreement, if
6 possible, but, if no agreement can be come to, by the provisions of an Act passed by the
7 Parliament of the Commonwealth. I strongly object to any one being a judge in his own
8 cause, but in this case you do not allow one of the parties to determine his own cause,
9 because the Parliament of the Commonwealth will not be a party to the transaction, but a body in which
10 all the states will be represented.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 There can therefore be no secrecy and any Government of the Day involved in dirty business
14 will claim it is for the best interest of the general community that matters remain secret, but it
15 undermines the very constitutional principles of being able to hold a Government of the Day
16 accountable. Indeed, how can an elector pursue the local Member of Parliament to pursue
17 something when the Government of the Day conceals relevant details?
18 As such, any notion of confidentiality of commercial dealing also is utter and sheer nonsense
19 because any contracts that involved the spending of public monies must be open for scrutiny. If a
20 business doesn’t like to deal with the Government of the Day because it seeks to avoid scrutiny
21 then so be it and it stays out of being awarded any contracts but if it desires to gain contracts then
22 there is no such as commercial confidentiality as that can never exist when it involved public
23 monies.
24 Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's
25 Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd, [2012] HCA 7, 8 March 2012, M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010,
26 M131/2010 & M132/2010
27 QUOTE
28 1. More recently, in Yaxley v Gotts[182] the English Court of Appeal considered the
29 requirement now made in absolute terms by s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous
30 Provisions) Act 1989 (UK) that a contract for sale of land can only be made in writing
31 which incorporates all the terms the parties have expressly agreed. It was held that an oral
32 agreement nevertheless might give rise to a constructive trust because such trusts were
33 saved by s 2(5) of that Act. But the Court of Appeal saw no scope for the doctrine of
34 proprietary estoppel. Robert Walker LJ said[183]:
35 "Parliament's requirement that any contract for the disposition of an interest in land
36 must be made in a particular documentary form, and will otherwise be void, does not
37 have such an obviously social aim as statutory provisions relating to contracts by or
38 with moneylenders, infants, or protected tenants. Nevertheless it can be seen as
39 embodying Parliament's conclusion, in the general public interest, that the need
40 for certainty as to the formation of contracts of this type must in general
41 outweigh the disappointment of those who make informal bargains in ignorance
42 of the statutory requirement. If an estoppel would have the effect of enforcing a
43 void contract and subverting Parliament's purpose it may have to yield to the statutory
44 law which confronts it, except so far as the statute's saving for a constructive trust
45 provides a means of reconciliation of the apparent conflict."
46 END QUOTE
47
48 What in my view should be done and should have been done already some time ago was for the
49 Australian Federal Police to obtain a warrant to search the offices of those involved to what I
50 view was a gigantic criminal matter. This, as obviously the commonwealth would have engaged
51 lawyers also for any deals to be made. Thos lawyers should have been well aware that the

Page 47
1 dictates by the pharmaceutical companies would violate Australian laws and as such if they
2 nevertheless went along then they also are to be held legally accountable.
3 It is well known that lawyer-client confidentiality cannot be claimed where it involves criminal
4 conspiracy. To conspire to violate Australian legal provisions cannot either attract any so called
5 “NATIONAL SECURITY” protection.
6
7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYIJxoh7qqw
8 Gravitas Revealed How Pfizer blackmails countries for shots
9 This video obviously begs a proper investigation as to what agreement the Federal government
10 entered into. After all we do have national security laws and to claim that violating those national
11 security legal provisions is for “NATIONAL SECURITY” to me is utter and sheer nonsense.
12
13
14
15
16

Page 48
1
2
4
5
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
Page 50
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 54
1
2
3 https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170_a&
4 dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fnews%2Fqueensland%2Frevealed
5 -professor-graeme-nimmos-history-with-drug-company-pfizer%2Fnews-
6 story%2Ffc488b086e6fb13c4126bf4bef82a8b8&memtype=anonymous&mode=premiu
7 m&v21=dynamic-cold-test-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append
8
9 Revealed: Husband of CHO’s history with Covid jab giants
10 The chief health officer’s husband Professor Graeme Nimmo received travel perks and benefits
11 while serving as an adviser to Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, it has been revealed.
12
13 https://www.sott.net/article/460079-Cruelty-Queensland-citizens-will-have-unpaid-Covid-fines-
14 taken-from-bank-accounts-and-seized-homes
15 QUOTE
16 Cruelty: Queensland citizens will have unpaid Covid fines

17 taken from bank accounts and seized homes
18 Sean Parnell
19 Brisbane Times
20 Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:40 UTC

Page 55
1
2 © AFP via Getty
3 More than 2,755 fines were from individuals and businesses accused of breaking Covid-19
4 restrictions and the rest either still under investigation or pending payment
5 Queensland's public health response has continued to reap dividends, as staff at the State
6 Penalties Enforcement Register deal with 3046 unpaid fines worth a total of $5.2 million.
7
8 The fines involve 2755 individuals and businesses accused of flouting the rules during the
9 coronavirus pandemic. About 56.4 per cent of fines had been paid in full or were subject to a
10 payment plan.
11
12 © Matrix News/Daily Mail
13 The State Penalties Enforcement Register is chasing $5.2m in unpaid Covid-19 fines from
14 individuals and businesses who are accused of flouting rule during the pandemic
15 The remaining 25.2 per cent of fines were either under investigation or still open to payment
16 without further action being taken.
17
18 The figures were accurate as at the end of September.
19
20 Queensland Treasury established SPER about two decades ago and, by this month, it had
21 $1.29 billion in debt on its books and was recovering more than $50 million each month.
22
23 Outside SPER's work, Queensland Health took the unusual step of calling in private debt
24 collectors to chase up $5.7 million amounting from 2045 significantly overdue invoices
25 for hotel quarantine.
26
27 "Queenslanders rightly expect travellers will pay for their hotel quarantine stays and not leave
28 taxpayers to foot the bill," a Queensland Health spokeswoman said.
29
Page 56
1 The spokeswoman would not say how much commission the debt collectors stood to
2 make under the arrangement, claiming it was commercial-in-confidence.
3
4 By October 8, 44,350 invoices had been issued for hotel quarantine in Queensland, of which
5 10.8 per cent were significantly overdue. Those who did not pay up, or successfully applied for
6 a waiver, would also be referred to debt collectors.
7
8 The government recently moved to allow for hotel quarantine invoices to be paid upfront, as part
9 of its roadmap to reopening, and expected to also have the Wellcamp and Pinkenba quarantine
10 facilities open within months.
11
12 Comment:
13  Australia tightens COVID curbs as Brisbane extends lockdown, army patrols Sydney
14  Australian sentenced to month in jail for violating quarantine to see girlfriend
15  Melbourne cops may now enter homes without warrant, after 11 people die with
16 coronavirus - Australia, this is madness, not democracy
17  Australia's CMO: No need for vaccine this year - emphasizes 'impenetrable hotel
18 quarantine system'
19  The prison colony remains: Federal court rejects challenge to Australia's outbound travel
20 ban
21 END QUOTE
22
23 In my view it would be unlawful for any State/Territory as to remove financial entitlements or
24 selling someone’s home without a court order. This, as our constitution has not permitted some
25 State/Territory Government to be some overlord but any Government must seek the Courts to
26 make an appropriate decision.
27 In my view what we need is judges who actually bother to understand and comprehend our
28 constitution and its embedded legal principles.
29
30 We also require government to act as “MODEL CITIZENS”!
31
32 HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible
35 by familiar analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds
36 of some hon. members, be thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-
37 though the suggestion or the expression of the analogy may in some quarters create a
38 smile-yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of federal government, we
39 ought, as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which prevails
40 in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband
41 represents the entire household.
42 END QUOTE
43

Page 57
1 Regretfully, what we now seem to have is a Federal Government with state and Territory
2 Governments to have been colluding how to misuse and abuse their powers, and this while the
3 AFP has been sitting idle letting it all go on and on.
4
5 In my view any agreement the Federal Government may have entered into for Pfizer to violate IP
6 of others must be deemed a criminal matter.
7 Likewise the other conditions that Pfizer demanded and the Federal Government agreed upon.
8 As such, Pfizer, and perhaps likewise other pharmaceutical companies in my view are complicit
9 to criminal conduct, including to seek to undermine constitutional requirements, such as
10
11 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court
12 In all matters:
13 (i) arising under any treaty;
14 (ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;
15 (iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued
16 on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;
17
18 In my view the Federal Government has no legal position to seek to circumvent these legal
19 provisions and having as I understand it nevertheless engaged in unconstitutional/unlawful
20 agreement(s) then in my view the Australian Federal Police must act immediately.
21
22 It ought to be recalled that when it came to the media the AFP had absolutely no hesitation to use
23 search warrants regarding the Afghanistan issues. Then why would not the same be used against
24 the Federal Government and anyone else involved in undermining our constitutional provisions
25 and conspiring to deny taxpayers their rightful entitlements, etc.?
26
27 Scott Morrison requested the Australian Federal Police to investigate regarding
28 COVID issues, and well, let the AFP do its job and do a proper investigation as I now
29 have requested in this COMPLAINT.
30
31 This document can be downloaded from:
32 https://www.scribd.com/document/518990686/20210806-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
33 B-to-Reece-Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-the-Australian-Federal-Police-
34 COMPLAINT-2
35
36 Date No. pages Subtotal COMPLAINT PART
37
38 6 August 2021 22 pages 22 pages Original COMPLAINT
39 7 August 2021 15 pages 37 pages Supplement 1
42
47
52
54 3 September 2021 50 pages 490 pages Supplement 13
55 6 September 2021 27pages 517 pages Supplement 14
56 22 September 2021 72 pages 589 pages Supplement 15
Page 58
1
2 9 October 2021 65 pages 654 pages Supplement 16
6
11
15 2 November 2021 57 pages 1090 pages Supplement 27
16
17 This part of the COMPLAINT must be considered with the other parts as well as all writings I
18 published at Scribd.
19
20 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
21
22 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
23 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
24 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

25 (Our name is our motto!)


20211102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-27-Legal Principles

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

20211102-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police-COMPLAINT-Suppl-27-Legal Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

39 Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.

40 Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way?

41 Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.

2-11-2021 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

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

13 Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution?

21 [start page 684]

18 Alexander Fleming – Photo: Wikimedia Commons – Imperial War Museums

2-11-2021 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

18 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.

24 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.

29 Clause, as read, agreed to.

2-11-2021 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

44 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

45 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

1 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

49 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?

2-11-2021 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

12 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

48 MR. REID.-The lawyers.

49 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The lawyers?

50 Mr. TRENWITH.-Yes, thrusting it on them.

4 Dr. COCKBURN.-The disagreement is not legal, but constitutional.

5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-You do not got lawyers from Heaven.

43 Mr. BARTON.-Is not that claiming infallibility?

14 Mr. BARTON: Not until merchants will cease to quarrel.

18 Mr. SYMON: There is no chance.

35 Mr. ISAACS.-Mr. Barton has given an opinion that it would not.

23 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

2-11-2021 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

16 [start page 192]

43 Mr. ISAACS.-It is a question of fact, like anything else.

1 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

43 Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.

2-11-2021 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

12 Mr. HOLDER.-The passage to which Mr. Glynn refers me is as follows:-

16 Well, that includes the borrowing of money.

2-11-2021 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

49 Clause 57 (Royal assent to bills).

53 Mr. MUNRO: Some verbal amendments may be required to be made in a bill!

54 Clause agreed to.

1 I indicated in Supplement 26 is ULTRA VIRES as if violated constitutional required separation

2-11-2021 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2-11-2021 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

21 Nicholas Veniamin: A list / Links for exposing the

11 ♦️Covid 19 - The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab.

16 ♦️Operation Dark Winter

19 ♦️Operation Crimson Contagion.

22 ♦️Operation Lockstep, Rockefeller Foundation

25 ♦️Operation Cygnus, UK Government

28 ♦️Influenza Preparedness Plan, UK Government

31 ♦️National Pandemic Influenza Plan, US CDC

33 ♦️Spars Pandemic (2025-2028)

36 ♦️Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Storage (March 2020)

38 ♦️Coronavirus Act 2020

2-11-2021 Page 32 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 ♦️Planetary Emergency Plan; Club of Rome

16 WHERE THEY GO ONE

23 The Vaccine Mandate Is a Hoax