20220304-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victorian Auditor General-Re $100,000 Race Payment, Etc

Page 1
1
2
3 Auditor General Victoria 4-3-2022
4 Level24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 comments@audit.vic.gov.au
5
6 Cc: Mr Scott Morrison PM Emailed through portal
7
8 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
9 attorney-general@justice.vic.gov.au
10
11 Re: 20220304-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Auditor General- nRe $100,000 race payment, etc
12 Sir,
13 what I view is very cruel is politicians for the sake of a forthcoming political election seeking
14 to tap in to the distress certain people may have regarding past events and seek to make political
15 millage out of this. I understand that Premier Daniel Andrews now uses this kind of deplorable
16 tactic to essentially use Victorian Consolidated Revenue Funds as to try to woo Australians of
17 Aboriginal descend by offering $100,000 so called repatriation compensation. My set out below
18 ought to underline that this is a scam that should not be allowed to be tolerated.
19 Essentially, it appears to me to be a voting buying exercise & “political race card” and I view
20 should be on moral grounds be deplored. It seems that politicians are in a bottomless pit when it
21 comes to loss of morals. Obviously for the auditor general the issue is of this is a “legal” issue if
22 the state of Victoria has the legislative/executive and/or the administrative powers to enable such
23 a kind of purported payments. Not assuming you are fully aware of all relevant legal issues I am
24 taking the opportunity to set it out below.
25
26 Let us first look at what some of the Internet articles set out what it is about!
27 https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/why-we-need-reparations-for-black-americans/
28 Why we need reparations for Black Americans - Brookings Institution
29 15 Apr 2020 ... Reparations—a system of redress for egregious injustices—are not
30 foreign to the United States. Native Americans have received land and billions ...
31
32 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
33 The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
34 15 June 2014 ... The Case for Reparations. Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety
35 years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal.
36
37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery
38 Reparations for slavery - Wikipedia
39 Reparations for slavery is the application of the concept of reparations to victims of slavery
40 and/or their descendants. There are concepts for reparations ...
41 QUOTE
42 Reparations for slavery is the application of the concept of reparations to victims of slavery and/or their
43 descendants. There ... read more
44 Reparations for slavery is the application of the concept of reparations to victims of slavery and/or their
45 descendants. There are concepts for reparations in legal philosophy and reparations in transitional justice.
46 Reparations can take numerous forms, including: affirmative action, individual monetary payments,
47 settlements, scholarships, waiving of fees, and systemic initiatives to offset injustices, land-based
48 compensation related to independence, apologies and acknowledgements of the injustices, token measures,
4-3-2022 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 such as naming a building after someone, or the removal of monuments and renaming of streets that honor
2 slave owners and defenders of slavery. Wikipedia
3 END QUOTE
4
5 https://www.britannica.com/topic/reparations
6 reparations | History, Definition, & Examples - Encyclopedia Britannica
7 reparations, a levy on a defeated country forcing it to pay some of the war costs of the winning
8 countries. Reparations were levied on the Central Powers ...
9 QUOTE
10 reparations, a levy on a defeated country forcing it to pay some of the war costs of the winning countries.
11 Reparations were levied on the Central Powers after World War I to compensate the Allies for some of their
12 war costs. They were meant to replace war indemnities which had been levied after earlier wars as a punitive
13 measure as well as to compensate for economic losses. After World War II the Allies levied reparations
14 principally on Germany, Italy, Japan, and Finland.
15 Later the meaning of the term became more inclusive. It was applied to the payments undertaken by the
16 Federal Republic of Germany to the State of Israel for crimes against the Jews in territory controlled by
17 the Third Reich and to individuals in Germany and outside it to indemnify them for their persecution. The
18 term was also applied to the obligations of Israel to the Arab refugees who suffered property losses
19 after Israel’s victory over the Arab states in 1948.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/31/slavery-reparations-seem-impossible-many-places-
23 theyre-already-happening/
24 Reparations for slavery are already being paid all over the country
25 31 Jan 2020 ... Slavery reparations may be the single most divisive idea in American ... 74
26 percent of African Americans now favor reparation payments, ...
27
28 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/california-reparations-slavery-african-americans
29 'If not us, then who?': inside the landmark push for reparations for ...
30 9 Jan 2022 ... inside the landmark push for reparations for Black Californians ... and
31 others are under review by a California reparations taskforce.
32
33 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reparations
34 Reparations Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
35 Reparations are forms of compensation provided to those who have suffered wrongdoing
36 or to their descendants. The term is especially used to refer to payments ...
37
38 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/slavery-reparations-federal-goverations-looks-2021-rcna900
39 What slavery reparations from the federal government could look like
40 24 Sept 2021 ... Calls for reparations for enslaved men and women, and their descendants,
41 have been made since the Civil War. But the federal government has ...
42
43 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/calls-reparations-are-old-emancipation-will-global-powers-finally-
44 list-rcna9800
45 Calls for reparations are as old as emancipation. Will global powers
46 26 Dec 2021 ... The call for reparations is being sounded beyond the U.S., with activists
47 and political leaders demanding accountability for slavery and ...
48
49 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/07/10/slavery-reparations-bill-spurs-new-debate-other-
50 nations-model/5396340002/
51 Slavery reparations bill spurs new debate; are other nations a model?
52 Reparations for historical crimes and injustices such as slavery and genocide have been
53 made in other countries. Will the USA join the list?
54
55 It may be noted that the above refers to “Central Powers”!
56
57 We therefore have to consider what is a “Central Power”, that is in a legal (constitutional)
58 meaning.

Page 3
1 We seem to have PURPORTEDLY a Federal Government, a State/Territory Government, a

2 Local Government, and now we also seems to have a National Cabinet, and this besides a British
3 Parliament (and a European Union as somehow providing legislation/mandates), etc.
4 As such, let us look at what is constitutionally applicable. Without going into elaborate details
5 quoting the Framers of the Constitution their position was that the “Central Government” was
6 the “Federal Government” and that the “Local Government “ was the “State Government”.
7
8 The Colony of Victoria was a having self-governing powers which provided with sovereign
9 legislative powers. In this case it means “sovereign” to be not subject to any requirement to seek
10 the approval of electors to change the 1855 Constitution Act 1855. It (The Victorian Parliament)
11 simply could do so at its desire.
12 However, The Colony of Victoria with other colonies decided to enter into a federation and as
13 result the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution bill was created. With some amendments the
14 British Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill 1900 (UK) upon
15 which Her Majesty granted it ROYAL ASSENT, causing it to change from being a Bill to
16 become an Act. Thus, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) became
17 law.
18
19 https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
20 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
21 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the Constitution are within
22 the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority, sovereign States, subject only to the
23 restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or
24 implied. Where, therefore, the Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the
25 Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
26 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
30 Convention)
31 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
32 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
33 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail
39 to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will
40 put in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
41 END QUOTE
42
44 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
45 We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
46 END QUOTE
47
49 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
50 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
51 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
52 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
53 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
54 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
55 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
Page 4
1 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
2 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
3 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
4 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
5 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
6 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
7 such authority.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
11 QUOTE
12 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
13 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
14 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
15 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
16 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
17 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
18 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
19 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
20 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
21 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
22 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
23 of the constitution.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Therefore, it must be clear that with the enactment of the Commonwealth of Australia
27 Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the states Parliament lost their “sovereign powers” and now ended
28 up with “constitutional legislative powers. By this the Victorian Colonial Constitution Act 1855
29 became now the Victorian State Constitution Act 1855 subject to the legal principles
30 embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). However, the
31 Framers of the constitution were well aware that the newly to be created Commonwealth of
32 Australia would have no existing Members of parliament, neither any legislative provisions, etc,
33 and to overcome this problem they held that in regard of section 52 of the Commonwealth of
34 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), the newly created states (section 106) “subject to this
35 constitution” would be entitled to exercise “concurrent” legislative powers, that was until the
36 commonwealth commenced to legislate as by then those matters upon which the Commonwealth
37 commenced to legislate would become “exclusive” legislative powers (like those listed in section
38 51).
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
43 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
44 END QUOTE
45
47 QUOTE
48 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
49 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
50 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

51 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
52 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
53 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
54 END QUOTE
55
57 QUOTE

Page 5
1 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
2 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
3 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
4 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE
9 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the
10 power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
11 END QUOTE
12 .
14 QUOTE Mr. REID:
15 We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
16 enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
17 laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
18 criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
19 complication of the kind.
20 END QUOTE
21 .
23 QUOTE
24 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
25 commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
26 power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate
27 on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
28 exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
29 that field of legislation.
30 END QUOTE
31 .
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it
35 will be exercised.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 An example is when the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to “income tax” the High
39 court of Australia held that this was “|exclusive” legislative powers for the Commonwealth and
40 the States had to retire from this.
41
43 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
44 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
45 own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
46 Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
52 END QUOTE
53
54 It is therefore very clear that neither the commonwealth and/or the states possesses any
55 legislative powers to emend the constitution. Not even the High Court of Australia can amend
56 the constitution1
57
58 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
59 Australasian Convention)
60 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:

Page 6
1 It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
2 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
3 believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
4 invest with federal jurisdiction.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
9 And then there is this proviso:
10 Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
11 to the rules of the common law.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 We find however that the High Court of Australia seem to have abandoned this limitation (As I
15 understand this such as in Cardinal Pell case), not that this means it is lawful1 as anything that
16 violates the constitution is ULTRA VIRES!
17
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
21 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
22 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
23 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
24 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
25 END QUOTE
26 .
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
30 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
31 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
32 [start page 2004]
33 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
39 saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
40 they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
41 END QUOTE
42 .
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
46 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
47 END QUOTE
48
50 QUOTE
51 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
52 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
53 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
54 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
55 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
56 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
57 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
58 END QUOTE
59
Page 7
1 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

2 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
3 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
4 any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
5 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
6 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
7 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
8 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
9 securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
10 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
11 the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
12 Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
13 daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
14 freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
15 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
16 liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
17 work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
18 Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
19 therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
20 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
21 with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
22 choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
23 next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
24 that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
25 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
26 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
27 Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
28 it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
29 Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
30 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
31 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
32 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
33 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
34 the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
35 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
36 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
37 sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
38 well.
39 END QUOTE
40
42 QUOTE
43 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
44 terms that are just to both.
45 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
46 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
47 required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
48 together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to
49 draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment,
50 which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
51 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters
52 that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
53 END QUOTE
54
55 As soon as some of the Framers of the Constitution became judges of the newly created High
56 Court of Australia they banned the usage of the Hansard records, this as I view it, to gain the
57 upper hand about any issue they may have been defeated in when as the Framers of the
58 Constitution they were debating the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill. As such,
Page 8
1 those judges immediately commenced to pervert the course of justice themselves and betrayed
2 the very constitution that enabled them to be judges. As result, many judgments it handed down,
3 if reviewed against the Hansard records then would be unconstitutional, as they were in violation
4 of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
5
6 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
7 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
8 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
9 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
10 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
11 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
12 authority of the United States”.
13
14 Chief Justice French in his speech “The Common Law and the Protection of Human
15 Rights”
16 to the Anglo Australiasian Lawyers Society on 4th September 2009, said:-
17 “ We do so against the backdrop of the supremacy of Parliament"
18
19 Yet, French J before becoming CJ then as a judge in WA made clear in regard off:
20
21 Commonwealth of Australia constitution act 1900 (UK)
22 (xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by
23 the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so
24 that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments
25 the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
26 (xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with
27 the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly
28 concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of
29 this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the
30 United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;
31
32 That this was no more providing the Commonwealth to accept any referral of legislative powers
33 from a state but the authority to refer State legislative powers must be found elsewhere1
34
35 Because the Commonwealth of Australia was designed with separation of powers between the
36 legislators, the executives and the judiciary, and the states were within Section 106 created
37 “subject to this constitution” then parliamentary supremacy no longer exist in the federation
38 and/or States legislative powers. All and any legislative powers could only be derived in
39 principle from the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
40 and then the residue powers left to the states, which as set out above had transformed their
41 colonial constitutions to State constitutions subject to the legal provisions of the Commonwealth
42 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
43
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. CARRUTHERS:
47 This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
48 END QUOTE
49 .
51 QUOTE

Page 9
1 The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
2 exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put
3 in words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 Also should be understood that as shown above the constitution was drafted not for the lawyers
7 but for the unlettered persons to understand.
8
9 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what
10 Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this
11 Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which
12 they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by
13 people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those
14 decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
15
16 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of
17 its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27 \99)
18
19 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
20 remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
21 borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
22 "
23 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
24
25 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
26 27 (17 June 1999)
27 QUOTE
28 Constitutional interpretation
29 The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
30 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs,
31 hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of
32 those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention
33 of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context
34 in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
35 Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my
36 opinion[53]:
37 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

38 available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an
39 exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not
40 mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means
41 trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a
42 social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
43 particular way on a particular occasion."
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Let’s use an example:
47 In today’s society we have the usage of the internet which obviously didn’t exist at the time the
48 Framers of the constitution were debating the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia
49 Constitution Bill, and yet I have all along maintained that nevertheless the Framers of the
50 Constitution expressed their intention to have the Commonwealth legislative powers as to what
51 is now known as the Internet, etc. As such, let us check why this is so:
52
Page 10

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. WISE: I have the concurrence of the gentleman in charge of the Bill for doing this. I
4 propose to omit all the words after the word "Postal," and to make the clause read as
5 follows:
6 Postal, telegraph, telephone, and other like services within and beyond the
7 Commonwealth.
8 If I move that it will be open to the hon. gentleman moving the present amendment to
9 strike out the words "within and." It is necessary as a matter of drafting, to carry out this to
10 meet the views of Mr. Holder, who moved the present amendment. Unless there are
11 express words implying that this is outside the Commonwealth they will not know its
12 limits. If we want the Commonwealth to have power to deal with cables, there must be
13 express power to enable them to go beyond the Commonwealth.
14 Mr. HIGGINS: What are you intending to cover by the words "other like services?" Do
15 you mean the railways?
16 Mr. WISE: There might be a long distance telephone or phonograph. Mr. Peacock's
17 laugh might then be heard in London. (Laughter.)
18 Sir GEORGE TURNER: We have his laugh here. Do not put him further on.
19 Mr. WISE: If Mr. Holder moves to omit the words "within and" it will come to the same
20 thing. I am sure these words are necessary to enable Mr. Holder to carry out his object.
21 Mr. SYMON: It is a little complicating the present issue to introduce telephones. Some
22 of us would be rather caught by the insertion of these words in deciding upon the
23 amendment by Mr. Holder. The introduction of telephones raises a distinct issue. It would
24 be better to put them separately.
25 Dr. COCKBURN: On behalf of my hon. colleague Mr. Holder, I will ask leave to
26 withdraw this amendment, so long as it is not intended in any way to obstruct it.
27 Amendment temporarily withdrawn.
28 Mr. WISE: Then I move:

29 To insert after "telegraphic," "telephonic and other like services."
30 I will not discuss this. Telephones are worked with telegraphs in every colony, and it
31 would be a great inconvenience to separate them.
32 Mr. SYMON: I should like to hear the views of Dr. Cockburn on this question, as some
33 of us are not familiar enough with the subject to say whether there can be a detachment of
34 the services.
35 Mr. DEAKIN: They must go together. Mr. WISE: They use the same wires. Dr.
36 COCKBURN: I do not think it is possible to separate them.
37 Amendment agreed to.

38 END QUOTE
39

Page 11
1 What the Framers of the Constitution made clear was that technology was developing and by
2 using the addition “and other like services” then whatever was developed/invented in the future
3 it would be within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. There can be absolutely no
4 doubt that being it oral communication via telephone lines or via a mobile or computer still is
5 well within the provisions of the legislation. It may then be asked if the Commonwealth then can
6 also exercise legislative powers as to the usage of computers even if not used for oral
7 communication. Besides the fact that telegraphic communication can also be performed via
8 computer the Framers of the Constitution also provided for the following:
9
10 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
12 QUOTE
13 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
14 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
15 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
16 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
17 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
18 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 There can be no doubt that therefore the Commonwealth has incidental powers relating to other
22 computer activities, etc
23
24 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
26 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
27 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
28 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
29 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
30 the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
31 END QUOTE
32 And
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
36 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
37 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
38 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
39 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
40 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 There is obviously also the issue of Section 116;
44
45 As shown below in greater extend the question of religion itself would be an invasion as to a
46 persons rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in
47 U.S. Supreme Court.
48
49 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
50 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
51 religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
52 prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
53 shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
54 under the Commonwealth.
55

Page 12
1 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
2 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No.
3 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
4
5 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
6 and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
7 in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
8 analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
9 and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
10 worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
11 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of
12 that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
13 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
14 exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
15 while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
16 that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
17 a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
18 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
19 longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
20 nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
21 have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
22
23 And;
24
25 http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
26 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
27 Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious
28 exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link:
29
30 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
31
32 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
33 practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
34 However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing
35 your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
36
37 And
38 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
39 required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
40 daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet
41 the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
42 religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
43 And
44 Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
45 unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by
46 deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't
47 know your rights.
48
49 What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion
50 and neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it
51 be associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
52 Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious objection” Subsection
Page 13
1 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
2 person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in
3 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the
4 “religious objection” applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore,
5 anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of
6 having any specific religion mentioned.
7
8 And
9
10 I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to
11 limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes also
12 any secular belief objection.
13
14 If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be unconstitutional.
15
16 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
17 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
18 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
19 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
20 Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
21 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
22 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
23 T01567737 & Q01897630
24 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
25
26 Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
27 offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
28
29 Madam,
30 As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
31 that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
32 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an
33 objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes
34 any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses
35 as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the
36 Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief”
37 based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or
38 philosophical source of “religious objection” have a valid objection.
39 Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
40 religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
41 mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
42 “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as
43 “objection” without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
44 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
45 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
46
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
48 END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
49 END QUOTE
50 For the record I representing myself succeeded in both appeals!
51
52 For so far I have been able to follow the development of cases through the U.S.A. it appears to
53 me that many if not all seeking “exemption” on religious views set out grounds, and this is self-
Page 14
1 defeating. What a person’s personal views/beliefs are is for that person alone to determine and
2 cannot be subject to the approval of anyone else, in particular where the other person might have
3 a totally opposing view/beliefs. Hence, the criteria is to merely claim religious exemption
4 without any further details/explanations.
5 Never let someone else dictate that you personal views/belief are not acceptable, this as they are
6 your own and not subject to judgment of anyone else. This applies as long as you do not try to
7 indoctrinate another person having to accept your views/beliefs.
8 I may make known that I had already on 4 December 2002 filed an extensive NOTICE OF
9 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS which was served upon all 9 Commonwealth, States and
10 Territories Attorney-General but none objected against it. By “consent” the court on 4 December
11 2002 ordered the matter to be heard by the High Court of Australia, however the Court so far
12 after about 20 years did not do so. Hence the following applies also:
13
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
17
18 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
19 state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
20 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
21 constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 It should be understood that the above legal principle can be applied to Australia but also to the
25 U.S.A.. Often, courts make a claim that a person has no legal standing, but as a tax payer a
26 person actually has a legal standing and more over all electors have an obligation as a sentry!
27
28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
29 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
30 The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of
31 the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
32
33 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-
34 resources/what-does-0
35 What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts
36 The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable
37 searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, ...
38
39 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-iv
40 Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure - National Constitution ...
41 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
42 unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...
43 QUOTE
44 Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10
45 amendments form the Bill of Rights
46
47 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
48 unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
49 upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
50 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 In the Commonwealth of Australia there is an embedded legal principle in the Commonwealth
54 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that no compulsory vaccinations is permitted by the
55 Federal Government however most constitutional lawyers are unaware that the first 14
Page 15
1 Amendments of the U.S.A. constitution actually also are embedded in the Australian
2 constitution, which I have extensively canvassed in the past.
3
4 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
5 QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
6 I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of our
7 labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice and not
8 to the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political morality, and just action to the
9 individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
10 END QUOTE
11
13 QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
14 These must seem almost too daring speculations; but, in point of fact, we are marching on to an
15 altogether new epoch, to new times, and the very essence of the constitution must be this: I heard one
16 hon. gentleman here state that we must remember that we are legislating for the future; and I agree
17 with him if he meant that we are legislating in such a manner as to enable the future to legislate for
18 itself-that it is our object that freedom in every respect shall be given, so that as each generation
19 comes on they shall say, "Blessed be those ancestors of ours who have left us this freedom, so that
20 nothing can take place-no changes in the state of the world-but we possess all powers to define the
21 measures most necessary to bring peace and tranquillity at every epoch it comes on." That is the real
22 duty which we should aim to fulfil; and it is only by allowing the people to speak, and at all times to
23 declare [start page 140] their views and their wishes, and to have them carefully considered, that we
24 can insure peace, tranquillity, and prosperity to each country in each successive epoch of time as it
25 arrives.
26 END QUOTE
27
28 Well FREEDOM OF SPEECH now is to be limited to sing the same song as the Government
29 dictates, regardless it might be totally out of tune. This even so FREEDOM OF SPEECH
30 clearly was embedded as a legal principle in the constitution!
31
33 QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS:
34 It is to be hoped that when such a proposal goes before the home Government some objection will be taken
35 to it. I could understand that in dealing with foreign nations we should put duties upon their goods, and I
36 should expect that we ourselves should be treated by them in the same way; but when the mother country
37 takes all our productions without imposing the slightest duty it seems to me not a very generous proposal
38 that we should raise a barrier against the productions of the mother country and treat her as a foreign nation
39 That is very loyal indeed; in fact I am astonished at the loyalty of this Convention. I am not going to inflict
40 upon the Convention my opinions with respect to loyalty; but when I hear that we are to be deprived of the
41 Governor appointed by the Queen, that we are to abolish the power of veto, and that we are not to treat with
42 the mother country upon fair and equal terms as regards fiscal matters, I am inclined to ask what hon.
43 gentlemen think about their loyalty, and to say that their loyalty is a sham, and nothing else. How was I
44 treated the other day? When walking down Circular Quay, I happened to see some goods that were
45 imported, and some man said to me, "That is the effect of free-trade." I said, "I am a free-trader"; to which
46 he replied, "You ought to be shot down, and I would shoot you down if I had the opportunity. I am a
47 protectionist." Is that the sort of conduct we are to receive here because we have freedom of speech
48 and freedom of opinion? Are free-traders to be crushed down because-
49 END QUOTE
50
51 Hansard 12-2-18900 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates
52 QUOTE Sir JOHN HALL.
53 It is said that history repeats itself, and we shall, I feel confident, have another instance of it. In the
54 Northern Hemisphere the old Empire has shown to the world how it is possible to combine the greatest
55 amount of individual freedom and liberty with most absolute security for life, property, and order;
56 and I believe it will be our great glory that in the Southern Hemisphere, and in these Southern Seas, we
57 shall repeat the lesson which the dear old mother country has taught the North, and that this great

Page 16
1 Australian Dominion will prove a centre of liberty, civilization, and light throughout the length and
2 breadth of the Pacific.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
7 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
8 secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
9 possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
10 no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
11 in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
12 There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
13 country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
14 by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
15 we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
16 in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Again:
20 It is a freedom not surpassed in any state in the world,
21 not even in the boasted republic of America.
22
23 There can be no question that at that time the 14th Amendment was part of the American
24 constitution.
25 There is also a very critical issue and that is that the Federal Government is not permitted to use
26 its funds in violation of the legal principles embedded in the 4 th Amendment.
27 Again, the 4th Amendment must be considered also applicable in Australia for the above set out.
28 This, as the Framers of the Constitution didn’t exclude the 4 th Amended when stating:
29
30 It is a freedom not surpassed in any state in the world,
31 not even in the boasted republic of America.
32
33 Billy Hughes PM went as far as to claim Australians impartiality from the British, and pursued to
34 be part of the League of nation, which not being an independent nation it had no right to do.
35
36 Then the Westminster Act (UK) was enacted but such an act in my view was so to say not worth
37 the paper it was written upon, this as in regard of any constitution it cannot be amended by an
38 ordinary law but only by a Constitution Amendment Act which the Westminster Act clearly was
39 not at all.
40 The United Kingdom joined the European Union and as such where British law was
41 complimentary to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then by this the
42 European Laws became so likewise, this as it was clearly set out that the European Laws were
43 overriding British Law other than constitutional law.
44
45 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
46 considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
47 Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
48 (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
49 IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
50 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
51 Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is

Page 17
1 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution

2 Act 1900 (UK) is.
3 It means that European Union Human Rights provisions are complimentarily applicable to the
4 Commonwealth of Australia.
5
6 We now have to consider the issue of the 1967 (conjob) referendum:
7
8 Section 51:
9 (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any
10 State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
11 Which became:
12
13 (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any
14 State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
15
16 I refer to it as a con job referendum because it was purported that Australians with aboriginal
17 origins were not “citizen” and for this the amendment was needed. However, the Framers of the
18 Constitution never at all denied those of the aboriginal race to be citizens, in fact there were
19 Aboriginals who voted in the first federal election in 1901, where they had been provided with
20 franchise by their State.
21
22 Within section 25 of the constitution the Parliament of a State could deny any race franchise.
23
24 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting
25 For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all
26 persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the
27 more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in
28 reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the
29 Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not
30 be counted.
31
32 And this to be considered with:
33
34 127 Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population
35 In reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a
36 State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall
37 not be counted.
38
39 The irony is that while section 127 (I view correctly so) was deleted nevertheless section 25 was
40 not, which to me doesn’t make any sense.
41 Western Australia had an issue as to taxation where it had any Australians of Aboriginal origins
42 and as such to avoid huge taxation upon federation by invoking section 25 and Section 127 the
43 state was originally spared severe taxation.
44
46 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
47 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
48 states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the
49 commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised
50 only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject
51 to the provisions of this constitution.
52 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
53 several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
Page 18
1 obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
2 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
3 opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
4 Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
5 commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of
6 the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
7 requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to
8 a parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of
9 the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the
10 commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they
11 exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to
12 make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when
13 the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
14 the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature
15 chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with
16 the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some
17 exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people
18 of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the
19 general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the
20 aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
21 END QUOTE
22
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
26 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
27 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
28 the aboriginal race in any state.
29 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
30 understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
31 community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
32 Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
33 do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
34 see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
35 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
36 Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
37 are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
38 not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
39 confines of Victoria at all.
40 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
41 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
42 class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
43 do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended
44 to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not
45 think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
46 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
47 the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
48 with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
49 existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
50 made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
51 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
52 that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
53 will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
54 laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
55 should not have power to devise such laws.

Page 19
1 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
2 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
3 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
4 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
5 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
6 END QUOTE
7
9 QUOTE
10 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal
11 natives shall not be counted.
12 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose
13 in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to
14 be debarred from voting.
15 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal
16 population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
17 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
18 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be
19 deducted.
20 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
21 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up
22 the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
23 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
24 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that
25 when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these
26 aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South
27 Australia will have so much the more to pay.
28 Clause, as read, agreed to.

29 END QUOTE
30
31 The statement:
32
33 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
34
35 Actually applies to section 41 of the constitution!
36
37 41 Right of electors of States
38 No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
39 the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
40 the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
41 from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
42 Commonwealth.
43
44 As such, those of Aboriginal descent had since federation the right to vote in federal elections
45 once the state within which they resided had granted them franchise.
46

Page 20
1 Not every person of Aboriginal decent had the right to vote as neither did so people of other
2 races, this as the franchise rested upon conditions the state held was to qualify a person to be
3 granted franchise. For example a person had to be at a certain age before becoming eligible to be
4 granted franchise (voting rights).
5
7 QUOTE
8 Mr. DEAKIN: I do not think it is fair. I can conceive circumstances in which it would
9 not be. But the hon. member's proposal is not fair unless he couples with it a provision that
10 it is only to apply after a uniform franchise has been established.
11 Dr. COCKBURN: The proposal will undoubtedly be an advantage to the women of
12 South Australia, as it will class them as electors instead of as infants. Otherwise it is a
13 baby franchise. It will be some year or two before Federation is accomplished, and it will
14 be some time after that before the Constitution is amended, and there will be plenty of time
15 for the franchise to become uniform. I do not suppose there will be any amendments in
16 the Constitution for ten years
17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-There are two difficulties in connexion with this matter
22 which we must recognise. There is the difficulty suggested by the leader of the
23 Convention, that you ought not to place it in the power of a state to fix a maximum of
24 uniformity, and the difficulty suggested by a representative of Victoria, [start page 1849]
25 that the women of Victoria, so far as the federal suffrage is concerned, should not be
26 placed in a worse position than the women of South Australia. We are not going to argue
27 the policy of this clause again, because it was settled in Adelaide, but I should like to
28 suggest a way out of both these difficulties. It would lie this way, to provide for the
29 insertion of words after "right" in the second line of clause 44A, to this effect, "similar to
30 that enjoyed by the electors of any other state at the time of the establishment of the
31 Commonwealth." The clause would then read:-
32 Any elector who has at the time of the establishment of the Commonwealth, or who
33 afterwards acquires, a right similar to that enjoyed by the electors of any other state at the
34 time of the establishment of the Commonwealth to vote at elections for the more numerous
35 House of Parliament of the state, &c.
36 The position would then be this: If Victoria adopted adult suffrage, that is, the South
37 Australian suffrage, which is the maximum suffrage at present as to the right to vote, the
38 women of Victoria would have the right to vote not only in the state elections, but also for
39 representatives in the Federal Parliament because the right would be fixed by the similar or
40 adult suffrage which obtains in South Australia. I think honorable members will recognise
41 the expediency of adopting that course. As long as the change is made, subsequent to the
42 establishment of the Commonwealth, to a suffrage in existence in any other state at the
43 time of the establishment of the Commonwealth, then that extension of suffrage should
44 apply to the federal as well as to the state Parliaments. That would conserve every right
45 that Victoria asks for, and at the same time it would recognise the difficulty pointed out by
46 Mr. Barton, that if you make a still further state change, for instance, by fixing sixteen
47 years as the limit, that must not be the test of uniformity with regard to the Federal
48 Parliament. It may be made by the Federal Parliament the universal suffrage, but it is not to
49 be made the test of uniformity by the Constitution. Unless you make an amendment from
50 the point of view of Mr. Barton, you will certainly put it in the power of the states to
Page 21
1 interfere with the breadth of uniformity of the suffrage. Then you will bring about this
2 result: That any state may, after the establishment of the Commonwealth, bring about the
3 change of suffrage to the extent enjoyed by any other state. If the committee wishes it,
4 perhaps I had better propose that addition. Any state can establish the South Australian
5 suffrage, and why should it not do so? There will be no diminution of the powers of the
6 Federal Parliament, and, if Victoria wishes to extend its suffrage to the same extent as
7 South Australia has done, why should it not be able to do so?
8 Mr. HIGGINS.-It would exclude baby suffrage.
9 Mr. GLYNN.-Undoubtedly it would. Mr. Kingston has pointed out that my amendment
10 would make it apply to the same rights as are in existence at the time of the
11 Commonwealth. That is quite fair. After the establishment of the Commonwealth, if there
12 is to be uniformity on a broader basis, it must be the federal policy, because it is the
13 Federal Parliament that would be affected by the change. I recommend the insertion of the
14 words I propose in the old clause, instead of putting in Mr. Barton's amendment. If Mr.
15 Barton's amendment is put in, I would ask for a change in the grammar, because at the
16 present it is not correct. The word "has" only governs the last part of the disjunctive
17 proposition, whereas it ought to govern both parts, and it should be put after the word
18 "Commonwealth."
19 END QUOTE
20
22 QUOTE
23 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-What I said was that I do not believe anybody here wants the
24 franchise to be given to persons under 21 years of age. I was not referring to anybody
25 outside. Now, what are we discussing? You certainly have provided in the clause with
26 regard to the amendment of the Constitution to the effect that the South Australian vote,
27 being an adult vote, shall be allowed to continue. You want to carry that out logically, and
28 therefore you provide that any other colony shall be allowed to adopt franchise laws
29 similar to the franchise law of South Australia. I do not suppose that anybody wants to
30 provide more than that; but you want to make the provision of this particular clause broad
31 enough to allow any other colony to extend its franchise to the same extent as the franchise
32 has been enlarged in South Australia. The amendment of Mr. Glynn would certainly allow
33 the colonies to make any laws they like-baby suffrage, I think, was one of the
34 interjections I heard.
35 Mr. GLYNN.-None of the states could do that. They could not go beyond the South
36 Australian suffrage, and have baby voters.
37 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-But I think the honorable member will admit that this does not
38 relate to the present time, but to the time when this Bill is passed by the Imperial
39 Parliament.
40 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We are on very dangerous ground.

41 END QUOTE
42
43 Again:
44 Within section 25 of the constitution the Parliament of a State could deny any race franchise.
45
46 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting
47 For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all

Page 22
1 persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the
2 more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in
3 reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the
4 Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not
5 be counted.
6
7 What this means is that “all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections ”
8 and not just some to be excluded. As such, if a state granted franchise to any Australian of
9 aboriginal heritage then it must provide this franchise to all persons of Aboriginal heritage
10 provided they do not fail to comply with the relevant restrictions such as “age”. As such, a
11 state cannot having 2 persons of Aboriginal heritage who are of the same age to have one
12 allowed franchise and not the other one.
13
14 The reason of preventing certain persons of a race to be able to exercise franchise is very
15 obvious, at least to me!
16
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
20 co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
21 disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
22 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 It is therefore very clear that any legislation within Subsection 51(xxvi) actually disqualified any
26 person of a certain race to exercise franchise. This, as if the Commonwealth legislated against a
27 particular race it didn’t want to have those of that race being able to overturn the legislation that
28 may be adverse to them.
29 Therefore this 1967 referendum regarding amending ss521(xxvi) was utter and sheer nonsense as
30 it in fact now allowed those of Aboriginal origin to be disqualified the moment the
31 Commonwealth enacted a legislation against them.
32
33 There is however another very serious problem. When the Commonwealth contemplated to
34 restrict certain/ aboriginals of Aboriginal origin to use their monies as they deemed fit in certain
35 areas not being say Victoria, Tasmania, etc, then this was actually unconstitutional as Ss51(xxvi)
36 only allows to be applied to all person of the race concerned. As such any control of how an
37 Australian from Aboriginal origins were to be allowed to use their monies only could have been
38 validly enacted if it was used against each and every person of Aboriginal heritage, regardless
39 where in the Commonwealth of Australia they resided and regardless if they were poor,
40 managing directors, lawyers, doctors, etc.
41
42 Again:
44 QUOTE
45 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
46 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
47 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
48 the aboriginal race in any state.
49 END QUOTE
50
51 With the amendment of Ss51(xxvi) the States therefore lost any legislative powers in regard of
52 Australians of Aboriginal origins. Meaning that any and all state legislation as to Australians of
53 Aboriginal origins are ULTRA VIRES.
Page 23
1
2 In this regard, it is therefore beyond any legislative/executive/administrative powers for the
3 Victorian Government to claim that it will pay $100,000 repatriation to Aboriginals.
4 Actually as I indicated likewise so any other legislation in favour or against Australians of
5 Aboriginal origins, such as allowing it to use land that is denied to other Australians.
6
7 Hansard 19-4--1897 Constitution Convention Debates
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship
10 of the 1891 Bill, there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be
11 well to alter their order. The Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end
12 of the proceedings will ask hon. members to give their attention to such alterations as they
13 may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses. With reference to Sir
14 Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested by
15 Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on
16 "Interpretation of Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:
17 It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal
18 character of past Acts, that the presumption against a retrospective operation is
19 strongest. Every Statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under
20 existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new
21 disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be presumed,
22 out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation.
23 Thus the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to
24 charge any person on any agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the
25 agreement were in writing, was held not to apply to an agreement which had been
26 made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the same way, was held not to
27 apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8 & 9
28 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be
29 brought or maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was
30 passed.
31 Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.
32 Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle
33 underlying the matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that
34 Parliament never intended to do a thing which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon
35 will agree that the provision is not necessary.
36 Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.

37 END QUOTE
38
39 Obviously we now have another problem in that while the commonwealth can legislate in a
40 “uniform” manner regarding any nrace, the states within Section 25 can only do so in regard of
41 voting rights.
42
43 And this to be considered with:
44
45 127 Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population
46 In reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a
47 State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall
48 not be counted.

Page 24
1
2 Here we are talking about “aboriginal natives” and not as to “aboriginals” in broad terms.
3
4 We hear a lot about “FIRST NATION” and about an “Aboriginal flag” that the Commonwealth
5 of Australia reportedly purchased for $20 million. It is in my view an elaborate fraud.
6 From my own research, I discovered that Aboriginals descended upon what is now known as the
7 Commonwealth of Australia from various directions, some through China and others through
8 Indonesia, etc.
9
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public
13 life. I am an Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I
14 am associated assume a position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
18 QUOTE
19 William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union
20 official and labour movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
21 Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a

22 bootmaker.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
26 QUOTE
27 Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional
28 Convention (1897–98) that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901.
29 His support of Federation was over the objections of many in the labour movement, and
30 served to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill had been "wholly shaped in a
31 conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 I am of Dutch heritage and born in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The original St Michaels shield
35 (shown in the heading) is already for over 1,000 part of our family, but later the Catholic religion
36 adapted it for its own religious purposes.
37
38 As I understand it DNA can be traced back through the female line, not through the male line.
39 Yet, inheritance used to be based upon the paternal line. Surnames used to be based upon the
40 paternal lines.
41
42 “Are all the US Presidents related” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9shzqqcfvfw
43
44 When one was to consider through the female line then this may have a different outcome if one
45 pursue DNA then if one was to follow the family tree.
46
47 In the USA there was an adult son who decided to give his parents a DNA kit to see how their
48 ancestry was. The parents (as small children) had come from Italy and had moved to different
49 parts of the U.S.A. as adults did meet up coincidentally and ended up becoming married. Just
50 that the D.N.A result appeared to show they were in fact brother & sister, this as one had been
51 adopted by another family and so the sibling’s connection was not known. The same that DNA
Page 25
1 showed many who had fathered several children with his younger wife, turned out to be the
2 biological father of his wife, albeit this had been unknown to both of them.
3 When the Dutch shipwrecked (several occasions) in the 1600’s in Western Australia thereafter
4 the French logbooks reported seeing Dutch style huts being visible and people of coper coloured
5 skin with blond hair. Perhaps, a DNA test might very well show that certain Australians of
6 Aboriginal heritage may have the same DNA as I have. We also have “Aboriginals” in different
7 countries such as in Canada, etc. China as I understand it also has “Aboriginals”.
8 As such, any claim that a person of Aboriginal descent somehow is a “FIRST NATION” person
9 is in my view absurd as the person could have been born in New Zealand or elsewhere
10 As I understand it many Aboriginal tribes were at war with other Aboriginal tribes and well
11 ending up killing them and cannibalism appeared to be part of it all. To call this to be some
12 “FIRST NATION” in my view is an absurdity. It is my understanding they never had one
13 language and certainly not one flag either.
14
16 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
17 The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more
18 repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the
19 existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their knives
20 and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of
21 their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-federated
22 Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no
23 enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the
24 soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for
25 the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves. We have no enemies
26 within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of any assault on the
27 mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a standing
28 army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force
29 for unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots
30 upon these resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want
31 to do is to make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by
32 reason of his taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist possible invasion
33 from without. Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the enemies of England,
34 and they, so long as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer
35 barrier, an outer bulwark in the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old
36 England. But we have no enemies within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a
37 standing army upon us. As was pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey,
38 yesterday, in his interesting speech, we have no necessity to keep a large standing army at
39 a large cost to the people of the country, [start page 185] when we have no enemies with
40 whom they will have to fight. Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation
41 of order within.
42 END QUOTE
43
44 Again:
45 We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies
46 to the whole-have no enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us
47 the possession of the soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case
48 in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves.
49
50 Now we seem all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork claiming to be aboriginals and
51 being member of the “FIRST NATION” when their line of ancestry may have been totally
52 different.
Page 26
1
2 We had this claim about the “STOLEN GENERATION” and various court cases had been held
3 and to my understanding not a single case was upheld to be regarding a stolen federation. In
4 South Australia there was a case where the Court concluded that a social worker had failed to
5 follow proper legal procedures. That obviously was not some “STOLEN GENERATION” issue
6 but rather a failure to follow proper legal procedures. Let put this in proper context.
7
8 I had a child with a woman who ended up before the children court (again) regarding having a
9 boyfriend sexual abusing some children. I attended to the Court (representing myself) and gained
10 interim custody of my 1 year old daughter. However when the final decision was made weeks
11 later the court placed all of the children in care of the department of Human services. I responded
12 with filing a complaint with the Ombudsman that the Department of Human Services was
13 neglecting my daughter for proper care, etc, and the Ombudsman upheld my complaint. I applied
14 to the Supreme Court of Victoria for custody and was granted this with strict rules as to any
15 access of my daughter to her mother. Such as that no male adult person was to be near my
16 daughter while she visited Allamby (DHS children’s home) where her mother would stay for
17 access purposes. However, I discovered the mother had a boyfriend there and so I refused access
18 unless the male was to leave. This was refused. I took my daughter home and next the Police
19 obtained a warrant for the “arrest” of my daughter (then 2 years old) and the Minister even was
20 on television making clear to have authorised tracker dogs to locate my daughter. I attended to
21 the police station showing the court documents I had but the police took my daughter of my arm
22 nevertheless and a social worker of the Department of Human Services then as I recall it
23 commented I would never again see my daughter. I filed a case in the Supreme Court of Victoria
24 and within 5 days this came before the Court. The Department of Human Services had made
25 clear it could overrule the Supreme Court of Victoria court order and the trial judge asked me if I
26 accepted this to be so. I stated that I did not accept that the Department of Human Services could
27 overrule the Supreme Court of Victoria. After a short adjournment, the Court ruled that the
28 warrant was invalid, and my daughter was to be returned to my case, which she was. Records of
29 the Department of Human Services had recorded that while my daughter was held by them
30 (unlawfully) my daughter had been calling out for me “Daddy, Daddy, where are you?”
31 I afterwards also discovered that the warrant had been unlawful also for the fact the police had
32 harassed ongoing a former JP who was suffering of dementia and was residing in a nursing
33 home. Her son explained to me that he had cancelled her JP status about 10 years earlier but the
34 police still had her signing warrants even so she didn’t have the mental capacity to understand
35 matters.
36 There can be no question about it, as it is all part of court records, that my daughter was
37 unlawfully in violation of Supreme Court of Victoria court orders taken from me.
38 Even that the Minister involved tracker dogs, as he stated on television.
39 Yet, we had that various persons claiming to be of the “STOLEN GEDERATION” somehow can
40 claim $100,000 this even so it was exposed their parents had voluntarily handed them over so
41 that they could possibly obtain a better future then they themselves could likely provide.
42 I would not in any way seek to denigrate those parents where they placed their child as a priority
43 regardless of the hardship to themselves to do so, but it should never be that this then can turned
44 about to claim that somehow their child is of a “STOLEN GENERATION”.
45 What my daughter went through was in every sense unlawful and even as an adult and mother of
46 4 children it nevertheless never leaves her what was done to her. Still, somehow Premier Daniel
47 Andrews desires to act as a racist to claim those who identify as a “STOLEN GENERATION”
48 regardless they never were somehow can claim $100,000 and anyone else can go to hell.
49 As such, regardless if a person was actually unlawfully removed from the care of a parent, if they
50 are not of Aboriginal race then they are denied equality!
51
Page 27

2 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
3 It is not something separate from the other portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first
4 volume of his work:-
5 The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal
6 discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to
7 cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex,
8 or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision
9 shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If
10 a discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this
11 as falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly
12 express it.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 As I have set out this kind of racism is actually beyond the constitutional powers of the State of
16 Victoria and as such cannot be accepted.
17
18 I recall there was this drive of an apology, which was refused by the Federal Government at the
19 time. Those of Aboriginal descent were making clear they were not after monies but an apology.
20 The Kevin Rudd PM made the apology but now it turns out this was obviously not really the
21 issue, as it was really about the monies all along.
22
23 My daughter never had an apology even so the court records can prove she was unlawfully
24 taken.
25
26 What we have is pure racism, as she has (a first cousin) who’s children are also of Aboriginal
27 descent, and well they somehow could claim $100,000 even so they never were unlawfully taken
28 from their mother (her first cousin).
29
30 It should be understood that society at times has no alternative but to step in where one of more
31 children are neglected and that never should then be claimed to have been ‘STOLEN
32 GENERATION” issues. Ultimately The Courts are there to decide legal issues and not for some
33 politicians to use tragedies in family circumstances for political gain.
34
35 Because my daughter has second cousins of Aboriginal heritage I ensured that my daughter from
36 a young age was having contact with Aboriginals. They would explain to use their customs and
37 traditions whenever we were spending time together. One an elder was upset that the media had
38 portrayed him as being some homeless person, as he gave me the understanding he actually
39 owned in his own right a flat nearby, but he simply desired to be together and share time with
40 people of his tribe.
41
42 Politicians will in my view do whatever they can to cause division where it suits their political
43 purposes, and this needs to be stopped. I take the position the State of Victoria has no
44 legislative/executive and administrative powers to interfere with the “exclusive” constitutional
45 powers of the Commonwealth of Australia.
46
47 I have for long urged an improvement of the court system so that never again a child is placed in
48 custody of the Minister (Secretary) but rather into the personal care of the specific named person
49 representing the Minister. This, as on the one hand the Department of Human Services is
50 ongoing seeking custody of children only then not just to neglect them claiming they lack to
51 have sufficient staff but even at time those kids ending up death. This without anyone being held
52 legally accountable. By specifically placing a certain person as responsible person, and where
53 this person no longer can perform this care then that person must apply to the court to vary the

Page 28
1 orders and name an alternative person to take over the case. Then, we may see a stark reduction
2 in harm inflicted upon children who were ordered into the care of the Department of Human
3 Services but ended up being neglected and even ending up as minors in prostitution.
4
5 What we have is in my view some “political race card” by Premier Daniel Andrews without
6 having a clue who really is or isn’t deemed to be an “Aboriginal”. Many children may be of
7 mixed race and many may not even be aware of they have Aboriginal ancestry in them.
8
9 The irony is that the very Australians of claimed Aboriginal ancestry often are claiming racism,
10 but when it comes to themselves then well racism is OK as long as it is in their favour.
11
12 It should be clear that Ss51(xxvi) does not permit legislation against the “general community”
13 and neither is to enact legislation in favour of any “race” rather it was specifically created to
14 legislated to deny a “race” certain rights and so also deny franchise.
15
16 Any form of payment of $100,000 to untold amount of people I view would be obviously
17 payable by the taxpayers, and not by the politicians personally, and as such seems to be nothing
18 but a “political race card” exercise!
19
20 In the U.S.A there also has been numerous comments about repatriation but ironically the very
21 persons leading the Federal Government being Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both are
22 descendants of slave trading families. They are fuelling the “race card” and having statues
23 destroys about anyone who they deem was pro slaves, yet somehow Joe Biden and Kamala
24 Harris are not likewise denounced. This just underlines that it is nothing but a “political race
25 card” issue.
26
27 To claim that only certain Australians can be paid (not that I seek to imply it is justified) while
28 others are not if they were not of a certain race in my view undermines the very constitutional
29 concept that prohibits any legislation in regard of “race” against the “general community”.
30
31 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
32
33 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
34 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
35 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

36 (Our name is our motto!)


20220304-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victorian Auditor General-Re $100,000 Race Payment, Etc

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

20220304-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Victorian Auditor General-Re $100,000 Race Payment, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

4-3-2022 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2022 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 We seem to have PURPORTEDLY a Federal Government, a State/Territory Government, a

50 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

4-3-2022 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2022 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

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

4-3-2022 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

37 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

1 Hansard 17-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

28 Mr. WISE: Then I move:

37 Amendment agreed to.

4-3-2022 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2022 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2022 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

4-3-2022 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution

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

4-3-2022 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

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

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

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

28 Clause, as read, agreed to.

4-3-2022 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8 Mr. HIGGINS.-It would exclude baby suffrage.

40 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We are on very dangerous ground.

4-3-2022 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

36 Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.

4-3-2022 Page 23 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

21 Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a

1 HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

4-3-2022 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

35 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

4-3-2022 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like