You are on page 1of 48

5

10

Panel of experts regarding proposed amendment of the preamble 7-8-2011 C/o Julia Gillard, PM C/o email; R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au . Issue: Is any amendment of the constitution and/or the preamble as to Aboriginals or otherwise constitutionally justified and possible and how would/could it affect matters? . TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN With any inquiry into any issue it is essential that those given the task to evaluate matters and to report back with any suggestions/recommendations, etc, are open minded and not merely exclude or otherwise disregard/conceal material submitted because it may not suit what they really intended to do. Indeed, why have any inquiry at all if the real issue with those conducting the inquiry is to have a certain intention regardless of what may be submitted? . To compile a submission as this one takes considerable time but regretfully often I find that submissions are concealed from the general public by committees who receive them (so to say buried) so as to avoid the general public to be aware the committee concealed certain relevant material as to ultimately do what they all along intended to do. The one that are suffering is not just then the general public but with this inquiry the aboriginals also, as the committee in doing so would in fact undermine their true rights and ability to obtain proper remedies for what they are entitled upon. . From onset I disclose that one of my daughters is aunty of 5 aboriginals and people may or may not view that I might be bias because of this, albeit I do not hold to be bias as my views are expressed as a CONSTITUTIONALIST (unless otherwise indicated to be personal expressions) and obvious where I quote the Framers of the Constitution then it cannot be held they are my personal views! .
1. Gillard announces indigenous referendum [Nov 8, 2010] Gillard announces indigenous referendum ... of having recognition in the preamble - I'm ... Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social ... news.smh.com.au/.../gillard-announces...referendum-20101108-17jtg.html . http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-announces-indigenous-referendum-20101108-17jtg.html QUOTE Gillard announces indigenous referendum

15

20

25

30

35

40

Matthew Sadler November 8, 2010 AAP

7-8-2011 Page 1 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The federal opposition has called on Prime Minister Julia Gillard rather than an expert panel to take the lead in recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution. Ms Gillard announced on Monday that an expert panel would be set up to consult on the best possible option for a constitutional amendment to be put to a referendum.

It is intended that the panel will report to the government by the end of 2011 while the timing of the referendum has yet to be determined. "The first peoples of our nation have a unique and special place in our nation," Ms Gillard told a media conference in Melbourne.

10

Ms Gillard said there was bipartisan support in the parliament for the constitutional change, with both former prime minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott having previously expressed their support. "We have a once-in-50-year opportunity for our country," she said. "I'm certain that if this referendum is not successful, there will not be another like it." Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop reaffirmed that it had been coalition policy at the 2007 and 2010 elections to recognise Aborigines in the constitution's preamble.

15

But she wasn't prepared to immediately back that recognition being in the body of the document, saying that was a matter for "expert advice". "I'm aware of the legal implications of having recognition in the preamble - I'm not fully aware of the implications of it being in the body of the constitution," Ms Bishop told Sky News. "That was not something that has been proposed in the past."

20

Ms Bishop said the prime minister should not hand over responsibility for building national consensus to the expert panel. "Surely this is the kind of debate the prime minister should be leading," she said. Ms Gillard said the government had left open the option of whether the referendum would be held before or at the next federal election.

25

Since federation, only eight of 44 referendums have been successful. Attorney-General Robert McClelland said securing a yes vote in a referendum was "not easy". The Greens, who lobbied for the referendum in their talks with Labor on forming a minority government, said there should be a people's debate and not a political discussion. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda said it was an important step.

30

"It will be about us as a nation and about us being mature enough to recognise our history but then to move on from it," Mr Gooda said. END QUOTE

. 35
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-to-put-aboriginal-recognition-to-referendum/storyfn59niix-1225903189578 QUOTE Coalition to put Aboriginal recognition to referendum Patricia Karvelas and Lex Hall From:The Australian August 10, 201012:00AM

40

7-8-2011 Page 2 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

THE Coalition has promised a referendum at the 2013 election on the wording of a Constitution preamble to recognise indigenous Australians. The opposition also says it will dump Labor's plan for an expert panel to build support for the constitutional recognition of indigenous people.

Labor promised on Sunday to establish the panel as discontent boiled over in Arnhem Land over the absence of indigenous policy from the election campaign. As indigenous people across remote Australia began casting their votes in mobile polling booths for the federal election on August 21, the Coalition's indigenous affairs spokesman, Nigel Scullion, said there was no need for another committee and he would guarantee a timeline for constitutional recognition to be delivered to Australia's first people. "We are not only committed to it, we certainly aren't going to flick this very important matter to an expert panel," he said. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage

10

15

POLLS: Aborigines among first to vote

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. "There's been a lot of conversation with the wider community about it. I haven't met anybody who doesn't think it should be reflected in our Constitution and it is down to words and there's not a great deal of angst in the community about the words."

20

Asked yesterday whether he would support a referendum on a preamble to the Constitution, Tony Abbott said: "I would be happy to see that as long as we could come up with a form of words indigenous people were broadly happy with and a form of words that wasn't going to create too much angst amongst the general community. "You wouldn't put a proposal to a referendum unless you were confident it could carry but if you could come up with a form of words, I think it would be a good thing."

25

A small army of Australian Electoral Commission staff yesterday began a vast sweep to reach voters in far-flung communities across the nation. Painted up in yellow ochre, traditional dancer Gerard Babui joined several interstate voters as they lined up to vote at the Garma indigenous festival in northeast Arnhem Land.

30

In the lead-up to the election, 38 teams from the AEC will fan out by air and road to reach almost 400 remote communities across the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and NSW. Mr Abbott said he didn't think the previous Coalition government had done enough on the symbolic side for Aborigines, while the current government hadn't done enough on the practical side. Senator Scullion said that under a Coalition government the words would be developed by the middle of the next political term in time for people to consider well before the following election.

35

A spokeswoman for Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said Labor's proposed panel would "undertake extensive consultation and develop options that could get broad public support". Some indigenous leaders were yesterday angry that the government was delaying action by establishing an expert panel to build support for the constitutional recognition.

40

Indigenous leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu said through a spokesman yesterday that constitutional recognition was "a serious step forward for indigenous people". "Constitutional recognition of indigenous people is the fundamental work that needs to be done if we're going to get serious about closing gaps," the spokesman said. 7-8-2011 Page 3 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Kimberley Land Council executive director Wayne Bergmann said a committee was a waste of time and action should be more immediate. "We've had promises previously but this has to be more," Mr Bergmann said. "This has to be carried through. I think there are faster ways to get action on this than going to another committee.

"This exists in many other jurisdictions in the world like New Zealand and Canada and we can't afford to have this discussed by a committee. It has to be brought through with some strong leadership to get some action because the time for Aboriginal people waiting for government to resolve our problems is over." Julia Gillard -- 600km away in Darwin campaigning in the marginal seat of Solomon -- failed to take up the invitation to visit Arnhem Land and put her personal stamp on Labor's commitment to constitutional change.

10

In 2008, Kevin Rudd committed Labor to holding a referendum on whether the Constitution's preamble should be changed to recognise indigenous people, a year after John Howard had given the same commitment. Greens leader Bob Brown said he was stunned that the government was again putting it to another committee. "We ought to be, with this election, voting yes or no to a constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians. Instead of that they are talking about an unnamed panel with an unspecified mission, and it's pretty disgraceful that that commitment hasn't been sorted out," Senator Brown said. Indigenous academic Marcia Langton said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were unhappy with their status in the nation and would not feel "truly Australian" until they were recognised in the Constitution. "They're saying of the apology: 'Is that it? Isn't there anything else? Are we ever going to be recognised as truly Australian? Aren't we the first Australians?' " Professor Langton said.

15

20

END QUOTE . 1. Celebration of new Preamble into Queensland's Constitution Premier Anna Bligh and Aboriginal and Torres Strait ... Celebration of new Preamble into Queensland's ... thought that the constitution only changed by referendum ... www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/.../celebration-of-new-preamble... - Cached 2. Indigenous Australians and the Constitution - Reconciliation Australia ... Indigenous Australians in a preamble ... Why was the 1967 referendum so ... Australians in its preamble: "The Parliament recognises that Victorias Aboriginal people ... www.reconciliation.org.au/home/reconciliation-resources/facts... - Cached

25

30

3. Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999(Bills Digest 32 1999-2000) The Preamble to the Constitution should contain the ... of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and ... Convention to Republic Referendum: A Guide to ... www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1999-2000/2000bd032.htm - Cached

35

1.

Preamble 'not enough' for Indigenous recognition


... for Monday 4 July, 2011 ... redraft of the preamble. They say that the referendum that Julia Gillard ... We do need a new preamble that appropriately recognises Aboriginal ... www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3061301.htm - Cached

40

1.

Recognising indigenous people in Qld preamble 'divisive'!!! | Treaty ...


... described the Constitution (Preamble) Amendment Bill ... Gillard tries to shift the blame; Gov't plans ... UN forum 2011: Delegates refute Aboriginal treatment treatyrepublic.net/content/...indigenous-people-qld-preamble-divisive - Cached

45

1. Aboriginal referendum long overdue - Top Stories - Lawyers Weekly ...

7-8-2011 Page 4 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

A leading constitutional law expert believes a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres ... failed attempt to include Indigenous Australians in the preamble to the ... . 11.

NOEL PEARSON TELLS JULIA GILLARD: GIVE US FIRST VOTE


NOEL PEARSON TELLS JULIA GILLARD: GIVE US FIRST VOTE January 26, 2011 09 ... tokenistically in the preamble. Another Aboriginal leader ... part of the constitutional amendment ... www.isx.org.au/forums/read.php?18,8795,8799 - Cached

12.

Referendum on Constitutional Recognition of the Indigenous Peoples of ...


On 8 November 2010, Prime Minister Gillard announced that ... to consult widely about the best option for an amendment ... panel will report to the government by the end of 2011. www.bonzer.org.au/?p=25628 - Cached

10

1.

Recognising indigenous people in Qld preamble 'divisive'


7:25AM Tuesday Aug 02, 2011; Send ... described the Constitution (Preamble) Amendment ... The preamble states, in part, it will honour: "The Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait ... www.brisbanetimes.com.au/...qld-preamble-divisive-20100223-p0ig.html

15

1.

Qld MPs debate indigenous preamble


7:57AM Sunday Jul 10, 2011; 2,050 online ... introduced the Constitution (Preamble) Amendment Bill ... Under the bill, the preamble will honour: "The Aboriginal peoples and ... news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/...preamble-20091124-jal2.html

20

25

. http://www.atsip.qld.gov.au/naidoc/preamble/ QUOTE The Preamble During NAIDOC Week 2010, we celebrate Queensland Parliaments landmark decision to recognise the First Australians. We celebrate the coming together of cultures and all peoples. What is the Preamble? On 23 February 2010, the Queensland Parliament passed a Bill to insert a Preamble to the Constitution of Queensland. The Preamble honours Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians.

30

35

This landmark change to the Constitution provides a new vision for Queenslanda vision based on democracy, freedom, inclusiveness and peace. Extract from the Constitution (Preamble) Amendment Act 2010 Preamble

40

The people of Queensland, free and equal citizens of Australia honour the Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the First Australians, whose lands, winds and waters we all now share; and pay tribute to their unique values, and their ancient and enduring cultures, which deepen and enrich the life of our community The Preamble also acknowledges Queensland's diverse and rich history, and the efforts of our ancestors who have made this state a vibrant multicultural community.

45

How did the Preamble come about? 7-8-2011 Page 5 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

This change to Queenslands Constitution resulted from an idea raised at the Queensland 2020: Ideas to Action forum held two years ago. The Parliamentary Law, Justice and Safety Committee received a referral from the Legislative Assembly to draft a Preamble including a statement of due recognition of Queensland's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council provided a number of submissions to the Committee, including proposed wording for the statement of recognition which was adopted in full without amendment. The significant role which the members of the Advisory Council played in this historic achievement has been widely recognised. The Preamble acknowledges our past and reaffirms our commitment to Closing the Gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

10

Last updated: 08 September 2010 END QUOTE

15

20

Again: QUOTE On 23 February 2010, the Queensland Parliament passed a Bill to insert a Preamble to the Constitution of Queensland. END QUOTE .

25

CONSTITUTIONALLY there is no such thing as a Bill to amend the constitution because bills are the forerunner of legislative provisions and only a proposed amendment can be passed by the Parliament and must be approved by both Houses of parliament and as the Queensland Upper House was purportedly abolished but constitutionally never was, then not a single Bill let alone any amendment to the Queensland constitution could be validated without the now nonexisting Queensland Upper House first passing it. Because since federation all State and Federal Parliaments became constitutional parliaments none therefore can amend any constitution without approval of a referendum, in a State by State referendum. (see below quotations for this also.) The first question to be asked may be who are the Framers of the Constitution? Often it is argued that the Framers of the Constitution are long dead and buried and their views do not fit ion todays contemporary society but reality is that we all when having voted in a referendum or even refuse to vote in a referendum, became part of the Framers of the Constitution. . This document cannot permit itself to explore All relevant constitutional issues because it would be to comprehensive at a length that may make it too large for consideration safe to say that for example the wording numerous House of Parliament (Section 41) means both Houses of Parliament of a State and as such the pretend abolishment of the Queensland Upper House technically disenfranchised all Queenslanders of their franchise of the Commonwealth. But no need to detail this further as my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikatiu has ample of documentation that set this out extensively such as the 090309 Address to the Court - part 2. Likewise there are numerous other issues relating to Aboriginals that most people seem to be unaware of. Who is an aboriginal?
7-8-2011 Page 6 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Well, DNA obviously itself doesnt or cant prove being of a certain race. What is a race After all while there were reportedly many tribes deemed to be Aboriginals the truth is that there are many Aboriginal races. As such as like with Europe and other countries having many Caucasian races it doesnt mean they are all one and the same race. There are numerous Aboriginal races which the Framers of the Constitution during their debates to draft a constitution acknowledged as they made clear there were Aboriginal races in Asia. As such, Aboriginals from Asia would still have fallen under the issue of aliens regardless that they might of an Aboriginal race. The term native used by the Framers of the Constitution was perhaps a more descriptive reference but then again anyone born of whatever race is a native born in a country, excluding special circumstances, for example an enemy soldier giving birth to a child during an invasion into another country hardly could be held to have a child born in that country being invaded. Another ridiculous situation is existing with the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Act This as no such constitutional power exist to have any race legislation dealing with more than one particular race! Torres Strait islanders are not be misconceived with aboriginals and as s51(xxvi) was specifically created to legislate in regard of a specific race then a legislation relating to more then one race is therefore unconstitutional. . More over any race legislation automatically removed citizenship and so franchise of the race it relates to and that is in regard of all persons, not just some, of that SPECIFIC RACE. The Northern Territory Intervention act IS NOT A VALID RACE LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT DOESNT RELATE TO ALL PEOPLE OF THAT RACE (Aboriginals) but merely some of them and hence is not a constitutional valid legislation. One therefore could technically sue the Minister and officials for the harm inflicted upon Aboriginals with this purported legislation. . So, why have this issue about wanting to change the preamble, besides that this is not feasible or constitutionally permissible, with s128 referendum, when the daily suffering of so many Aboriginals will continuing unabated and so all there seems to be is a lot of money being wasted on so to say feel good window dressing issues but disregarding the real plight of many Aboriginals . Basically the con-job 1967 referendum regarding s51(xxvi) should be reversed and a person ,like myself who is a CONSTITUTIONALIST engaged to seek to present an amendment to the constitution that provides the appropriate format of constitution al reform to benefit Aboriginals but at the same time doesnt deny or otherwise interfere with the rights and privileges embedded in the constitution entitled upon by the general community. . I am aware that there is a lot of debate and even High Court of Australia decisions regarding terra nullis issues but consider that the French ship logbooks reported in the 19 century to see gold coloured kind of Aboriginals with blond hair and huts shaped in the Dutch manner and fields of cultivation and then considering that a Dutch ship was shipwrecked with its captain and about 70 odd men at the coast of what is now known as Western Australia and a ship captain brings with him the common law of the country he came from then clearly long before Captain Cooke arrived in Botany bay the Dutch already had Dutch common law in Australia (then known as New Holland). As such, the RULE OF LAW that came with this captain, who seemingly inbreed with some Aboriginals established in this in certain parts of New Holland the Dutch RULE OF LAW. . There are also discoveries that show as to a depth of about up to 4 meters of current soil levels coins and other religious items were discovered from China, Egypt, and other countries.
7-8-2011 Page 7 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

Therefore, New Holland, long before known as such, was visited by numerous races which may have interbreed with other races and which may have resulted to other now generally known as Aboriginal race tribes. Because some Aboriginals may have resided within a certain area of what is now known as the landmass Australia (not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia which is nothing more but a POLITICAL UNION. When one consider the European Union then one doesnt call a Frenchman to be a European national and therefore neither is person of the Commonwealth of Australia an Australian national as the constitution was created within the concept of the British crown and nothing can be done to alter this, even by a referendum, this, because s128 only can be used as to part 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and cannot alter the Preamble or any other sections of this Act. Therefore the Sue v Hill purporte3d declaration about Australia being independent is quite frankly utter and sheer nonsense because it is beyond constitutional powers to do so, and below quotations are there which makes it clear this is not constitutionally permissible. . That brings us to the constitutional nonsense of the purported Australia Act. The Commonwealth of Australia was created as a POLITICAL UNION and hence what might be applicable in New Zealand and Canada cannot necessarily be applied in the Commonwealth of Australia! A clear example is a purported CARBON TAX, as the Framers of the constitution made clear that environment was a State legislative power and as such as I wrote to the Federal government, it cannot use the powers of taxation to unconstitutionally interfere with a State legislative power as some backdoor way to gain further legislative powers and now the federal government has commenced to refer to Carbon Price instead, when I made clear I would be willing to challenge any Carbon Tax constitutional validity. . As I published in my book titled (Published on the 40th year anniversary of the 1967 con-job s51(xxvi) referendum): .
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD) A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-B&W) A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-Colour) A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-8-5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40

45

. The purported application of the Westminster Act is not constitutionally applicable because it pretends that the Commonwealth of Australia is a dominion which as shown below clearly it never was intended to be. . Now, if we are going on about wanting to amend the constitution as to refer to Aboriginals then either you accept the true meaning and application of the constitution or not at all. Window dressing for a feel good version of a preamble that constitutionally has no meaning as it is merely an elaborate political trickery as was the professed sorry by the Federal Government in 2008 when the Northern Territory Intervention Act went on unabated!
7-8-2011 Page 8 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

. Also, consider the protection of religious artifacts cannot be existing because the Commonwealth of Australia by way of s116 is prevente3d any race legislation. This gigantic BLACK HOLE was created in the constitution because people who consider themselves lawyers but lack any proper understanding and competence in constitutional matters are then advocating their nonsense and the general public fell for this trickery. . It should be understood that s51(xxvi) was specifically created to DISCRIMINATE against a certain coloured race and as such if I were to claim that Aboriginals are say scum of the earth then no State legislation or Commonwealth legislation could deal with me because the constitution was specifically created to be allowing the Commonwealth to DISCRIMINATE and hence no legislation contrary to this can be legally viable or enforceable. It should be understood that well before the 1967 referendum there were Aboriginals who were pushing for s51(xxvi) to be amended but in the 1950s the Commonwealth was provided with legal advice that amending s51(xxvi) would be the wrong way to go because it would mean that all baggage of that section now applicable for any race would then also apply to Aboriginals. It was recommended to create a special new section for Aboriginals as to avoid any detriment effect of s51(xxvi) but the Federal Government then aborted any intend to amend the constitution. . It should be understood that any legislation within s51(xxvi) that is detrimental to any other Australian is constitutionally null and void and no government can use s51(xxvi) to give away land to any race (so neither to Aboriginals) because it belongs to the People! Fancy the committee to worry about wanting to amend the Preamble rather than about what is already being done wrong and therefore purport rated against not only aboriginals but also against the general community. . As I made clear to Kevin Rudd (then Prime Minister), regarding his sorry to Aboriginals, what did he apologize for? After all half cast Aboriginals that were removed were not just of Aboriginal but also those of Irish, German, Dutch, Chinese or other nationalities! Is it somehow that if there is an Aboriginal heritage then this is exclusive to any other nationality? And, why apologize when legislation permitted this at the time? Are we going to apologize for each and every perceived injustice caused upon the many even so in law it was then permissible? Indeed, how could he have validly apologized when he had no standing TO APPOLOGIZE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE Parliament because he has no constitutional powers to do so. Neither could he apologize on behalf of the judiciary because they are acting as a separation of powers! And as a government he could not apologize for and on behalf of his predecessors either. What he did was to give a political apology that was a feel good apology but had absolutely no real meaning because again he continued unabated with his unconstitutional Northern Territory Intervention Act! It is like giving a person say $1.00 and brag about it while at the same time stealing $100.00 from person! . As much as the preamble in the constitution cannot be amended by s.128 neither can this achieve to say turn the Commonwealth of Australia into some kind of republic. .

It must be made clear that while I did above make known that the British Parliament only could amend the preamble of the constitution do not misconceive that the British Parliament can merely enact an amendment to
7-8-2011 Page 9 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

the constitution because this would be of no legal and so of no constitutional force at all. Likewise if they were to seek the British Parliament to amend the constitution to turn it into a Republic this would have no constitutional validity!
5 . As such, there is a lot more to it to achieve amendments to the constitution but while I have set lout a lot above I am not so to say a complete idiot to spill it out all in this submission as after all I did publish in my INSPECTOR-RIKATI book series and so people can read it all in there. . Those who cannot afford to purchase a copy always can go down to the Australian National Library at Canberra, or other library that hold copies of my published books and read there free of charge. . I have for years advocated to have the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) as a constitutional council to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courts involved as to constitutional meanings and applications so that finally we all (including politicians and the courts) can be provided with what is constitutionally applicable and permissible as chasing an amendment to the preamble while so any Aboriginals are suffering uncalled for, to me is having your priorities up the creek and you all better get some sense of reality as to what is sought to be achieved, is it a better life for Aboriginals they are entitled upon or some fancy description while regarding the real suffering of numerous Aboriginals? . Just consider this that as referred to above the unconstitutional Northern Territory Intervention Act is unconstitutional because it relates not to all ;people of the aboriginal race but merely some of them and so to make it constitutionally valid then not only should it deal with the denial of land possessions of certain Aboriginals (under the scheme now pursued) regardless if those Aboriginals happen to be professionals living in Melbourne, Sydney ort other places and so including their properties. Now, once a lawyer in Melbourne were subjected to this unconstitutional legislation then he/she may realize that being Aboriginal might not be so much to be boosting about when it comes to now being a non-citizen and of an inferior coloured race and indeed we all did better to reverse the 1967 con-job s51(xxvi) referendum and have all Aboriginals back into the fold with other Australians as being citizens. Going by the unconstitutional provisions of the Immigration Act any Aboriginal can now be deported as a :non-citizen?! I suggest one doesnt wait until someone was to get into power and just use this to deport Aboriginals because then it might just be too late and no kind of amendment of the preamble will save so to say the skin of any Aboriginal then. . While s127 (as it then was) appears to have been discriminatory against aboriginals a proper reading of the intentions of the Framers of the constitution rather reveals a totally different intention. At the time of federation Western Australia, Queensland, etc, had huge Aboriginal populations and if the federation was based that the colonies (now states) had to pay as to census population as per residents then the counting of the Aboriginals would have likely avoided any federation to eventuate because of the huge financial burden then placed upon the States to pay per resident. More than likely a slaughter of Aboriginals could have resulted to reduce the Aboriginal population to enhance a lower pay per State! Let us therefore be realistic and now condemn the original Framers of the constitution as being racist against Aboriginals because to the contrary they enshrined the rights of aboriginals as equal in the constitution and the fact that the Commonwealth with its 1908 WHITE ONLY legislation defied the provisions of s41 cannot be blamed upon the constitution or for that upon the original Framers of the Constitution
7-8-2011 Page 10 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

but may only show how incompetent all those lawyers were then and since not to realize that you do not advance the cause of Aboriginals to amend the constitution as by the con-job 1967 s51(xxvi) referendum but rather had the 1908 legislation declared unconstitutional so far it related to Aboriginals. . The true effect of the 1967 amendment of s51(xxvi) of the constitution was not to give Aboriginals equality as they already had this but to discriminate against them!, and in the process lose their citizenship (franchise). And for this the leader of the Aboriginals received a Human Rights medal? Come on the gross injustice perpetrated against Aboriginal hardly is to be awarded with a medal and certainly not a Human Rights medal at least that is my view. . And as I understood it the United Nations notably supported this kind of con-job referendum! . Then again, the Framers of the Constitution made it clear that International laws couldnt override constitutional provisions and so in any event it is not constitutionally relevant what the United Nations may or may not pursue. Unbeknown to lawyers the truth is we have three levels of government and it aint municipal/shire councils as a Local Government because the constitution was based upon and State government being the local government and municipal/shire councils being corporations acting for the ratepayers, but the British Parliament and so any constitutional legislative powers since provided to the European Union are complimentary to the constitution. Which means that any Human Rights provision by the European Union, for so far not in conflict with the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia) are complimentary to all provisions by the Commonwealth. The decision in English nature makes clear that any European Union decision doesnt affect any existing British constitutional law, such as that of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). However, if the British Parliament were to provide any amendment now to Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then it would be bound with the European Union provisions. A chart of legislative powers prior to and since federation has been published by me at my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati. You will find no Australian lawyer will be aware of this as they simply arent educated to what really is constitutionally applicable, hence why I can comprehensively defeat them in litigation! . It is therefore clear that any amendment of a preamble has to be considered in the broader context of what the constitution stands for and what is possible and any intent that may exist to somehow advance the status of Aboriginals over that of other Australians, such as with land rights claims must be aborted because that is not what the preamble is for either. . I for one am pursuing a VELVET REVOLUTION to get back to the origins of the constitution and ensure that we have governments that act within the provisions of the constitution. We have for example the State of Victoria legislating about aboriginals being able to manage crown land while others are prohibited to use the same crown land for grazing, and in view of the 1967 con-job referendum THE STATE CLEARLY NO LONGER HAS LEGISLATIVE POWER AS TO ABORIGINALS AND SO FOR THAT ALSO THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SO ULTRAVIRES, BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS TO CREATE A LOT OF RESENTMENTS WHERE NONE SHOULD EXIST BECAUSE POLITICAL MOTIVES DO NOT OVERRIDE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS! Actually, the states neither can amend their own constitutions without a State referendum and any powers the State seek to refer to the Commonwealth within the provisions of s51(xxxvi) must be first approved by the electors in a state Referendum as any reference of power is in fact amending the State constitution
7-8-2011 Page 11 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

50

10

15

20

25

30

because the powers are then withdrawn from the state. This as the Parliament of the States no longer are sovereign Parliaments that can amend their own State constitutions but by federation became constitutional Parliaments that are prohibited to amend their own constitutions but can only achieve any amendment by submitting to the electors a State referendum to approve or veto the proposed amendment of the constitution. . The handing over of crown land to aboriginals neither has any legal force. therefore the Federal Government handing over land to Aboriginals where this was clearly not with the consent of all electors and so is and remain a constitutional nonsense. No government can give away land belonging to all people to a certain race and certainly not within the provisions of s51(xxvi) which is specifically to discriminate against a race and not to the general community. The Chinese are well known for their hard working explorative work in gold mines, etc, and yet you find no where the equivalent kind of provisions to reward Chinese for their hard and diligent work even so much was contributed by them. In fact they were cheated out of their rights when the franchise where they were promised that by supporting the federation they would not be disfranchise only to have s51(xxvi) later Applies and the WHITE ONLY legislation to prevent them to overturn any special legislation against them., by automatic disfranchise. The grave injustice not just perpetrated against Aboriginals but against many other races should never be condoned and yet no sorry to them as it seems it is not getting any political gain. Getting back to the referendum power, I am not aware that the 1967 referendum included any statement to the electors that if they approved the amendment of s51(xxvi) then this would also the application of this section to all or any other race! Why should this section only be used to the advancement, above the rights of the general community for Aboriginals but not for other races? Clearly this section is and must remain to have only one specific application and not that it can be used to the detriment of races bar Aboriginals. The amendment of the constitution was never intended to have this s51(xxvi) to have two different meanings pending to whom it applies. Further, Torres Strait islanders are not Aboriginals and so recognized by the fact that the Commonwealth legislated as to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Act. We have got a Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs but the Framers of the Constitution never held there was a Torres Strait Islanders race. So, where they considered Aboriginals or not that is the question? If so then why have them separately as Torres Strait Islanders? By defining them as two separate identities effectively they are different race groups. On 7 August 1901, Sir Edmund Barton, Prime Minister of Australia, endorsed this statement in the course of his speech in relation to an Immigration Bill:
QUOTE The day will come, and perhaps is not too far distant ... when Chinamen and the natives of Hindostan, the States of Central and South America ... and ... African nations of the Congo and the Zambesi ... are represented by fleets in European seas, invited to international conferences and welcomed as allies ... The citizens of these countries will then be taken up into the social relations of white races ... Is this not something to guard against?[1] END QUOTE . ([1]Australia, House of Representatives 1901, Debates, vol HR III, p 3503.)

35

40

45

50

. As I understand it that Michael Kirby then judge of the High Court of Australia sought to make out that homosexuals were a race and then considering that it was reported that former High Court of Australia Chief Justice Mason had made known that he held that the High Court of Australia should use its judicial powers to provide for where it held the Parliament failed to legislate for then we must have grave concerns as to what the intent of the Court really is! After
7-8-2011 Page 12 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

all, the Framers of the Constitution while so to say confusing nationality with what is a race in ordinary terms as they refer to Hindu and Japanese and Afghans, Indians (under British rule) as if each is a race rather than relating to a nationality themselves at least referred to what they termed to be inferior races but didnt consider Aboriginals to be so. Now however the 1967 con-job s51(xxvi) referendum resulted that Aboriginals now also can be deemed to be an inferior race or races . To me this is a stain upon Aboriginals that better is dealt with in an appropriate manner rather than to bother about some perceived recognition in the constitution. It also should be understood that the preamble was not just for a British constitution act but that the Commonwealth of Australia could have included New Zealand and any other nation and you cannot include Aboriginals in a preamble and then not recognize Maoris and other races who may or may not now be part of the Commonwealth of Australia. Why not then include Torres Strait Islanders in the preamble? And considering that New Guinea was and technically remains part of the Commonwealth of Australia as the Commonwealth is a indissoluble POLITICAL UNION . QUOTE

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia


20
[9th July 1900] WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great

25

30

35

40

45

50

END QUOTE . While neither Fiji or New Zealand decided to join Australiasia nevertheless if they at any time were to do so or for that any other territory then why on earth would they want to accept the reference in the preamble as if Aboriginals also are the historical owners of the land? . In the Paul Hogan and Pincivic taxation cases I did make the ATO (Australian Taxation Commissioner) that it asking people if they reside in Australia is not a constitutional valid question as the question should be if a person resides in the Commonwealth of Australia because Australia is defined as the landmass prior to federation and not including Tasmania and other outside territories since included in the Commonwealth of Australia. In Tasmania there was purportedly a DNA testing conducted to establish who was an indigenous Aboriginal and it couldnt be established who was of a particular race. The same was reported likewise in other DNA testing about other races and as such claiming to be an Aboriginal much is what does one consider to be an Aboriginal? Ample of Australians, even so appearing to be Caucasians, claiming to be Aboriginals, even if they are claiming to be the descendants of transported convicts because to them they are born and bred in the Commonwealth of Australia. Their rights to call themselves natives in itself is to be accepted because they are technically a native of the country they are born, and the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to declare otherwise, meaning that the term Aboriginal is not distinct to certain coloured people! . Aboriginals can relate to those in the land before colonial times but then there were many such groups of Aboriginals who shared no common bond or even language within Australia and one cannot hold either that the now claimed Aboriginal flag of black, red and a yellow disk somehow represents Aboriginals. Indeed, we had in Victoria a dispute where
7-8-2011 Page 13 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Aboriginals wanted place names in the hills (Grampians) of the original Aboriginal tribes changed to what they held was applicable to themselves. As such while on the one hand Aboriginals seek to claim to be united on the other hand, It suits them acting contrary to being united and couldnt give a darn about historical issues. We have land rights claims about how tradition and other claimed religious issues are connected to the land and then I understand it all means nothing when it can be sold or subjected to mining. As such to many Australians it is all merely some land grab money exercising issue rather than caring about real traditional values. We have got this dancing about at Parliament and other official functions but who are really dancing about? Are they so to say the original inhabitants of the area or just those who at some time moved in and now claiming it all as their own and subjecting people to their traditions and so antics even so it has no spiritual or other connection with the land whatsoever. For example because I am Dutch born doesnt mean I can go to Western Australia and claim the land for myself because the Dutch settled in what is now known as Western Australia in the 17 century! I may look Dutch and be born a Dutch man but that in itself doesnt mean I have any rights to claim up large parts of Western Australia on the basis Dutch common law existed long before the British settled in New Holland (now known as part of the Commonwealth of Australia). Still some recognition kin the preamble as the Dutch being historically the first who took common law into New Holland and by this effectively became the first organized law and law enforcement in New Holland would not be out of the question if Aboriginals are going to be referred to in the preamble, as after all Aboriginals were generally known as nomads, who travelled around and didnt like the Dutch (such as in what is now known as Western Australia) have permanent settlements. Come to think about it the British settling in 1788 in Botany Bay area didnt even know then about the Dutch and their descendants residing in what is now known as Western Australia and so never really ousted Dutch common law And well I might as well claim the entire landmass Australia as my own because I Dutch! Well, if that is not acceptable then why should others then accept that some Aboriginals who came from wherever can claim the entire landmass of Australia (not being then part of the Commonwealth of Australia). . It reminds me to a judicial decision ion the Supreme Court of Victoria where contrary to legal provisions an aboriginal had attended a bar and had been convicted but this court on appeal overturned it because it held that because the person looked like an Aboriginal in itself was not sufficient it couldnt be assumed he was an Aboriginal but it had to be proven he actually was an Aboriginal and this the court below had failed to establish. As such the issue is that a person must not be considered to be an Aboriginal merely because this person looks like an Aboriginal but must be firmly established to be an Aboriginal. The fact that his/her parents claim to be an Aboriginal in itself neither is any kind of evidence as my parents could have made that claim also if they had wanted to do so even so they were original inhabitants of The Netherlands. As the Framers of the Constitution also made clear there were Aboriginals residing in Asia then this complicates matters even further because when you refer to a general term Aboriginal then are you referring to Aboriginals who never even did set foot in the Australia or are you going to set out in the preamble something like Forget to claim to be Aboriginal if you never had any link with Australia! or something of that kind? It is akin to The Netherlands having a preamble in its constitution that the original inhabitants are Caucasians, as if they do not reside in the rest of Europe or so in the United States of America, etc. .
7-8-2011 Page 14 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10

15

20

25

30

Unlike any written record showing distinct historical linage of Aboriginals now living as to being connected with Aboriginals residing long ago (as they may have merely moved in to Australia just prior to British settlement as did then the Dutch), I for one have a record that for example a grave with the name Schorel existed more than 1,000 years ago with our family crest being St Michaels the Dragon slayer, also known as the GUARDIAN ANGLE and that the Dutch town Schoorl (as originally known as Schorel, (for hundreds of years and still known as Schorel for certain parts of this town) I never contemplated to lay claim on the land as an descendant of the original inhabitants. Neither did I seek the country to place my family name into its preamble of the constitution because after all the main things is that despite the invasions of other nations over the centuries nevertheless our family branch survived and the pride in being of the original inhabitants isnt going to change one of iota if the preamble of the Dutch constitution was to be amended to include a reference to my family. As I noticed we even have a family member with Asian kind of facial expressions using the surname Schorel and I for one am not going to make an issue about it if he is n or isnt a Caucasian because by whatever right that he gained the surname Schorel I view it is not for me to interfere with it. . The same we have to consider the perhaps aptly stated trade name Aboriginal because it cant be defined as belonging exclusively to a certain group of people because it is and has been used commonly to inhabitants prior to colonial settlement, and are we now going to accept that the Dutch but not having specifically colonialized (What is now known as Western Australia) nevertheless are also considered to be Aboriginals in particular where they assimilated to some extend with the existing Aboriginals and otherwise introduced Dutch common law and other laws into New Holland? . The late President Saddam Hussein commenced his battle to unite Kuweit with Iraq upon the basis that it was historical part of Persia. Well we all know by now what the end result was. . People are getting fed up with how so many Aboriginals are staking their claims and upon some utter and sheer nonsense and all because it is unconstitutionally facilitated by the federal government because there is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth to fund such elaborate nonsense. S51(xxvi) was specifically created to DISCRIMINATE against a particular race and NOT AT ALL TO ENHANCE IT ADVERSE TO OTHER AUSTRALIANS. . QUOTE
1. The affairs of the people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal native race in any state.

35

40

45

END QUOTE . I had Aboriginals claiming that they represent all Aboriginals as to their traditions and values. We had Katy Freeman running around with what purports to be an aboriginal Flag even so it never existed at the time of federation! Yes, there are ample of people who like to stake their Aboriginal: claims for whatever purpose and often to so to say big note themselves even so they have no legal standing in that regard. Who was Katy Freeman to claim it was an Aboriginal to my knowledge all Australians are under one common flag? Who is discriminating one may ask? Those Aboriginals who died fighting in foreign countries as Australia soldiers were they fighting under a false flag because they didnt use the purported Aboriginal flag or is it rather that it is a dishonor to them to seek to separate Aboriginals from mainstream Australians as they have
7-8-2011 Page 15 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

contributed each in their own way to the existence of what is now known as the Commonwealth of Australia? .Constitutionally we are and remain to be subjects of the British Crown, but we are generally referred to as Australians, because of the landmass Australia even so many may never actually enter the landmass Australia but remain to reside in their own part Commonwealth of Australia. . It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; British subject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire., with the consent of the Imperial authority, What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of Australia committed TREASON? After all they were appointed under the oath to the British Crown and so prohibited by the constitution of any alliance to any foreign head, even if this is purported to be the invisible Queen of Australia. . Despite that more then a 1,000 when my family already then had the crest of St Michaels the Dragon slayer (GUARDIAN ANGLE) The United Holland now known as The Netherland didnt exist as such I do not propose to oppose the current constitutional structure because illgotten landholdings or other misconduct long ago hardly is going to advance society. The same with Aboriginals in general, it would kin my personal view be better if we stop all this rot about certain Aboriginals issues and just accept that there was much misconduct against Aboriginals wherever they resided as eventuated in other parts of the world but we do better to concentrate and address the current ills. . As like Kevin Rudd before her Julia Gillard may seek to get political benefit from purporting some referendum to include Aboriginals regardless how useless this might be when one co9nsider the issue such as the Northern territory Intervention Act no lesser being enforced but reality and common sense alone, if that still exists, should warn anyone to better accept that what might be a good idea, such as the con-job s51(xxvi) referendum may in the end turn out to act adverse to Aboriginals. It might be that to amend the preamble might be seen and interpreted by others that it is recognized that Aboriginals were the original inhabitants but no longer now can be considered to have any legal status because by accepting to amend the preamble they have accepted the constitution as such and have forgone any future and claims, etc. Often it is better be warned what you arte wishing for because you may have certain views but others could very much use this detrimental to Aboriginals. . It reminds me to a judicial officer engaging Government solicitors to have me charged with contempt of court. During the hearing the judicial officer read lout the relevant passage she relied upon to hold there was contempt of court. Subsequent to this I read out the precise same section but explained what it really did mean and how it was applicable. Well, the judicial officer abandoned her contempt issue because realizing she had actually misread/misunderstood what the section stood for. . No doubt Aboriginals in regard of the 1967 referendum to amend s51(xxvi) expected to be provided with equal citizenship and not that in fact constitutionally they were robbed of citizenship!

7-8-2011 Page 16 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lucky enough the term non-citizenship in the Migration Act is unconstitutional as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth could not define/declare citizenship as otherwise every Aboriginal could not be deported! One must be an utter and complete fool to consider that having some kind of recognition (besides it not being constitutionally possible) in the preamble somehow is to going enhance the suffering of so many Aboriginals now subjected to the unconstitutional Northern Territory Intervention Act or in otherwise are robbed of their constitutional rights! . If the committee is purely a tool for the Government of the Day to enhance its political status amongst electors then obviously you might be doing an excellent job but if the true intentions is that to advance the rights of Aboriginals in general not adverse to other Australians then I would expect the committee to recommend to abandon the idea of amending the preamble and instead the Commonwealth addresses in real terms , not fake statements, the plight of aboriginals. . Those who persist in wanting to amend the preamble either didnt properly understand/comprehend this submission and so included the quotations below or are simply too dumb to use common sense. Whatever, wonder why the Commonwealth never really seek my inclusion in any inquiry/committee and you may just find that what I present as a CONSTITUTIONALIST simply isnt to what the Commonwealth desires and so what is purported to be achieved with inquiries is to try to use some material of submissions to push ahead with what all along was intended and committee members are no more but a tool to advance THIS WHILE RELEVANT DETAILS OTHERWISE ARE CONCEALED. . Those who in the end are genuinely interested in the plight of Aboriginals they can always contact me and work with me to advance the rights of aboriginals as is constitutionally permissible. . Just read the quotations below and then consider how much each of you really was aware of it all and then you may just accept that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST it would be better not to ignore what I am on about, not just about Aboriginal issues but also other matters. . Now let me provide a list of quotations also, and do keep in mind that Are merely some of them and is not intended and neither must not be perceived as to present all relevant issues. . This list of quotations has been compiled by Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues as a handy reference for those wanted to do so research. It is not intended that this reference is relied upon as one always should check back to the Hansard records and read the debates in its entirety as then and only then you may just understand/comprehend that regardless that the Framers of the Constitution are long death the reality is they created a constitution that is today as valid as it was then. After all, if it werent then the electors could have amended the sections if they pleased to do so!
. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. END QUOTE . 7-8-2011 Page 17 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE

.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

10

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE

15

.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE . HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE And HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE

20

25

30

35

40

45

.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this constitution. END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE

50

55

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of


7-8-2011 Page 18 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Australia
[9th July 1900] WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established: And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen: Be it therefore enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

10

1 Short title [see Note 1] 15


This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

2 Act to extend to the Queens successors


The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majestys heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

20

3 Proclamation of Commonwealth [see Note 2]


It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

25

30

Clause 4
8 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

4 Commencement of Act 35
The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.

40

5 Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]


This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queens ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

45

6 Definitions 50
The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act. The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth,
7-8-2011 Page 19 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State. Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

7 Repeal of Federal Council Act [see Note 4]


The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, is hereby repealed, but so as not to affect any laws passed by the Federal Council of Australasia and in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

10

Clause 8
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 9 Any such law may be repealed as to any State by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or as to any colony not being a State by the Parliament thereof.

15

8 Application of Colonial Boundaries Act


After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act.

20

9 Constitution [see Note 1]


The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows: The Constitution
END QUOTE . S128 QUOTE Chapter VIII Alteration of the Constitution

25

Section 128 30
56 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Chapter VIIIAlteration of the Constitution


128 Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1] 35
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives. But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.
7-8-2011 Page 20 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

50

10

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails. And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queens assent.
Alteration of the Constitution Chapter VIII

Section 128 15
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 57 No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. In this section, Territory means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.
Schedule E Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

20

25

30

Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government. Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear. Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might be dangerous to the Constitution itself. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE .

35

40

45

50

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. 7-8-2011 Page 21 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

55

10

15

20

25

END QUOTE . HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE And HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE

. 30
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE

35

40

. 45
HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted. 7-8-2011 Page 22 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

50

55

10

Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes. Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. END QUOTE

. 15
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the 7-8-2011 Page 23 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

10

15

20

25

30

daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE . HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power? Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. END QUOTE . Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism. END QUOTE . Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE . 7-8-2011 Page 24 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

25

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE . Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that if we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws over which the states are to be supreme even under federation. END QUOTE . Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear. The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.

30

35

40

END QUOTE . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided. END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria)-I do not propose to be as severe in my criticism of the provision of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) to-day as he was in his determined opposition to my proposed clause yesterday. I would point out, however, two difficulties in the way of adopting his provision. The first is that there is no definition of the status of "citizen." The clause does not say whether a citizen is a ratepayer of a state, an adult male, or any member of the population of a state-men, women, children, Chinamen, Japanese, Hindoos, and other barbarians. Who are the citizens of a state? Mr. SYMON.-That depends upon the law of the state upon the subject. Dr. QUICK.-So far as I am aware, there is no law in any colony defining colonial citizenship or state citizenship. I am merely adopting the line of argument which my honorable and learned friend adopted yesterday, in taking advantage of technical points. Mr. SYMON.-That was not my line of argument. END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject? 7-8-2011 Page 25 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

55

10

15

Mr. WISE.-I presume so. Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects. Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth." I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case. Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien. Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders. Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out. END QUOTE . HANSARD 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON: I ask the hon. member not to insist upon his amendment, which refers to territories and not to new States. It would be impossible for the Commonwealth ever to consent to the admission of territories which might be sparsely populated, and which would, [start page 1015] according to the hon. member's proposal, be entitled to six members in the Senate. Territories or districts which are only in a primitive state of development are intended to be dealt with by a clause of this sort. They are in a transition state, and they are governed by the Commonwealth until such time as the States have reached a condition which would entitle them to representation in the Senate. Bryce says: Besides these full members there are also eight territorial delegates, one from each of the territories, regions in the West enjoying a species of self -government, but not yet formed into States. These delegates sit and speak, but have no right to vote, being unrecognised by the Constitution. They are, in fact, merely persons whom the House under a Statute admits to its floor and permits to address it

20

25

30

35

This Constitution is on a little more liberal basis than that in this respect: the Commonwealth in the case of the secession of a territory which is cumbersome, gives power to allow the representation of it in either House of Parliament under the terms which the Parliament thinks fit. Instead of the territories being governed in a way that only entitles them to be represented as delegates there is power to give them a certain degree of representation. It is quite as much as they can have the right to expect, and this is a more liberal provision than is to be found in the American Constitution. I trust we shall not have to divide on this. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).But let us take first his position in regard to the Commonwealth. Under the power which you have given to the Federal Parliament to make laws regulating immigration and aliens, you embrace every possible set of circumstances under which any person may enter the bounds of the Commonwealth. As you have power to prevent any person from entering any part of the Commonwealth, you have also the power to prevent any person from becoming a member of the Commonwealth community. There is no territorial entity coincident with the Commonwealth. Every part of the Commonwealth territory is part of the state, and it is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state that any person within the bounds of the Commonwealth will have any political rights under the Constitution. Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state, which, of course, stands in exactly the same position. Mr. WISE-Is that clear? [start page 1754] Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is admitted to political rights at the will of the Commonwealth, and upon such terms as the Commonwealth may impose. Every person who has rights as a member of the Commonwealth must be a citizen either of some state or some territory. It is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory that he has any political rights in the Commonwealth. 7-8-2011 Page 26 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

50

55

10

15

Mr. WISE.-Before the 14th amendment was passed it was very much questioned whether a citizen of Washington had any rights at all, because Washington was only a territory. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; but what the honorable and learned member says really supports my argument. The thirteen original states occupied a very small portion of the area now forming the United States of America, and of course the question might arise as to what the position of a person who is not resident of or a citizen of any state, but a resident of a territory, might be in relation to the Commonwealth. But I do not think that that question will arise here, because we cannot imagine, I think, any portion of the Commonwealth becoming a territory now, unless it has been a state at one time-unless it is some portion of a state which has been ceded to the Commonwealth, and in the cession to the Commonwealth there is no doubt that care will be taken to define what the rights of the residents of the territory would be in regard to the political rights of the Commonwealth. It appears to me quite clear, as regards the right of any person from the outside to become a member of the Commonwealth, that the power to regulate immigration and emigration, and the power to deal with aliens, give the right to define who shall be citizens, as coming from the outside world. Now, in regard to the citizens of the states-that is, those who are here already, apart from these laws-every citizen of a state having certain political rights is entitled to all the rights of citizenship in the Commonwealth, necessarily without a definition at all. END QUOTE Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It is, therefore, very necessary, bearing in mind the original limitation in the first of the resolutions which you, sir, moved in the Convention, to see that we do not exceed that limit, and do not propose to transfer from a state parliament to the parliament of the commonwealth any power which can be better exercised by the state parliament, or the exercise of which by the parliament of the commonwealth is not necessary for its good order and government. That is the rule which we have had before us, and how far we have succeeded in making the division of course is a matter upon [start page 524] which the Convention and the public will express their opinion. I propose to call attention to some of the powers, not to all, in the list. Many of them require, I think, scarcely any comment; they will be admitted as being powers which ought to be within the province of any federal legislature: END QUOTE . HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. END QUOTE . QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.This sub-section does not say that the Federal Government is to have the power to take that land. It assumes that the Federal Government has that power, but when the Government does take land, compulsorily or by purchase, in a state as its possession, it takes that land certainly by virtue of its sovereign power of eminent domain, that is, the highest dominion. But it does not hold that land as sovereign, it holds the land as proprietor. Now, where it holds the land merely as proprietor, without the consent of the state being given to it, it is quite plain that the jurisdiction of the state should run, except, of course, so as not to interfere with the performance of the governmental functions of the Federal Government. But, as far as punishing crime is concerned, as far as any other ordinary state supervision relates, not inconsistent with the performance of the supreme functions of the Commonwealth, the ordinary state law will run. But the United States have provided, and we, I understand, propose to provide here, that, where the 7-8-2011 Page 27 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

10

state consents to the Federal Government acquiring any land, either by purchase or compulsorily, it thereby consents, and that consent is equivalent to the admission of the right of the Federal Government to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect to that particular portion of territory. And if the state does not choose to give its consent, it says, in effect-"You may take this land, it is true, by virtue of your sovereign right, for your sovereign powers, but you hold it as proprietor; you can carry on your post-office, your court-house, or anything you please, but as regards ordinary state laws outside those functions our state laws prevail. Where the state, however, is asked by the Federal Government to consent to the excision of a piece of land from its own territory for governmental purposes, and does consent, then the exclusive right of the Federal Government to govern that portion of land attaches to it, and this is what the sub-section we are now considering intends to enact. END QUOTE

15

It must therefore be very Clear that there are Territories which are in the process of becoming States and so have local law including territory police force, and there is a Territory (within the Territory) which is Parliament House that falls under Federal Territory government by Federal Law not local law of the ACT and as such the Territory Police has no business in Parliament House. Parliament House falling under Section 52 of the Constitution, not Section 122
. Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws. END QUOTE . Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution, where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think, ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON: There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here. END QUOTE Hansard 23-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Clause 30-Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives shall be in each State that which is prescribed by the law of the State as the qualification of electors of the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State. But in the choosing of such members each elector "I have one vote for as many persons as are to be elected in any electoral divisions for which he is qualified to vote, and if an elector votes more than once he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and no elector who has at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or who afterwards acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, shall whilst the qualification continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from exercising such right at elections for the House of Representatives. 7-8-2011 Page 28 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. BARTON: In this clause I move the same amendment as before, for the purposes of the House of Representatives as for the purposes of the Senate. I move: To strike out "shall have one vote for as many persons as are to be elected in any electoral divison for which he is qualified to vote," and to insert "vote only once."

Amendment agreed to. [start page 1211] Mr. ISAACS: In this clause Mr. Holder moved an amendment that we discussed last night, preserving the rights of persons who have at present the right to vote. That right is conserved as regards the House of Representatives, but is it also conserved as regards the Senate?

10

Sir JOHN DOWNER: Undoubtedly. Mr. BARTON: Yes, because the qualifi-for the Senate is the same as for the House of Representatives. Mr. ISAACS: The qualification is given in clause 30, and we wish that no person shall be deprived of his vote. It is not making a qualification, but conserving a right outside the qualification. I do not think the right is properly conserved, but if the South Australians think the rights of women voters is sufficiently guarded, I am satisfied. Mr. BARTON: It is enough for present purposes. Mr. HOLDER: We might stop at the word "right," in the last line but one of the clause. Mr. BARTON: That would be saying where an elector otherwise acquired a right of voting for the Legislative Assembly of his own colony the Commonwealth could not deprive him of the right of voting. I think the provision at the end of clause 9 will cover the case. If it does not we can amend in September. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Hear, hear. Leave us something to do then. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted. Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes. Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. END QUOTE . Hansard 13-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Amendment suggested by the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

At end of clause add the following paragraph:-"No elector who has at the establishment of the commonwealth, or who afterwards acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous house of the parliament of the state, shall, whilst the right continues, be prevented by any law of the commonwealth from voting at elections for senators." 7-8-2011 Page 29 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[5.3]: This suggestion concerns South Australia more than it concerns Victoria. It is, perhaps, a suggestion for the Drafting Committee to deal with. It is made in order to preserve, in regard to the senate, the right of women in South Australia to vote, just as that right is preserved in the case of the house of representatives. The wording of, the amendment is only, I think, to carry out the intention of the Convention. In clause 30 certain, election qualifications are fixed for electors; but there is a Prevision. that women are not to be prevented; by the federal parliament from voting at elections for the house of representatives. It is restricted to that. The Hon E BARTON: We can meet the, difficulty, I think, by making the last part of clause 30 to apply to the senate, by putting it under the provisions relating to both houses!

10

The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: That, I think, will meet the case. It merely draw attention [start page 420] to the matter, leaving the framing of the amendment to the Drafting Committee. The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales[5.4]: I would suggest that we should formally negative this amendment, and the Drafting Committee will frame an amendment by which on the recommittal of the bill, which must take place, the provision at the end of clause 30, will be made to apply both to the senate and to the house of representatives. Amendment negatived; paragraph 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. END QUOTE . Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 53. The Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have exclusive powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the following matters:-

15

20

25

1. The affairs of the people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal native race in any state. Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I am not sure that I properly grasp the meaning of the sub-section. I understand that there is to be some amendment made in the sub-section.

30

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.

35

40

Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the confines of Victoria at all. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans? Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended 7-8-2011 Page 30 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

45

to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power? Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

10

15

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it? Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Suppose it does not legislate? Mr. BARTON.-You may suppose that it will not legislate, but I think we will have to assume that it will.

20

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-The difficulty is that there will be an interval before it does. Mr. BARTON.-At any rate, we must assume that these powers will be exercised. If we are going to assume that they are not going to be exercised, we had better not put them in the Bill. Mr. ISAACS.-Why make this exclusive?

25

30

35

40

Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. Of course it is contended, and there is a great deal of force in the contention, that there is a doubt about the expression used, which comes from the Bill of 1891-"Special laws not applicable to the general community," and there is, I should imagine, considerable difficulty in coming at a right form of expression in that regard. What is intended is-and I think what was clearly intended by the Convention of 1891 was-that immediately the Commonwealth came into force there should be a law, if the Commonwealth deemed fit, passed for the regulation of the affairs of people of such races. Of course, as my honorable friend (Mr. Isaacs) suggests, the expression general community" may raise a doubt. It may be that the words should be not applicable to the state in which they are," but whether that be so or not, as to the question of the exclusive nature of the power, I entertain a strong opinion that the moment the Commonwealth obtains any legislative power at all it should have the power to regulate the affairs of the [start page 229] people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth. Some persons may say that it will provoke difficulties with the states. I do not think that it will. I think that the states will be prepared to see the general importance of legislation on this subject, and legislation passed with a knowledge of what may in some cases be almost the international relations which will exist in reference to these people. I take it that the proper authority for that purpose is the Commonwealth; and whatever we may say in reference to the advisability of a mere expression here, as to which care will of course be taken-theme matters; are being carefully gone through now-the policy of the sub-section, which is that the law shall be exclusive, ought to commend itself to the members of the Convention. Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-While I agree with the views expressed by the leader of the Convention with regard to the purport of this clause, and as to its necessity, it does not appear to me to be properly drawn in order to meet the purpose of the draftsman, and I would suggest that all the words after the word whom," in the first line, be left out, with the view to insert the following words:laws have been passed by the Commonwealth in respect of their immigration into, or emigration from, any part of the Commonwealth. 7-8-2011 Page 31 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

45

If the sub-section is so altered it will give the Commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction over the affairs of the people of any race with respect to whom laws of the Commonwealth are in force in respect of their immigration into, or emigration from, any part of the Commonwealth. Mr. ISAACS.-I take it that that is merely striking out the exclusive power.

Mr. WISE.-I have not made myself clear. Mr. DEAKIN.-It leaves the domestic control to the states. Mr. WISE.-It leaves the domestic control to the states. The object of the clause is a proper and, indeed, a necessary one. If the Bill takes the power to regulate the entering of a foreign race into any part of the Commonwealth, then the race, the moment it enters into the Commonwealth, must be under the protection, of the Commonwealth, and it is impossible that there should be any conflicting jurisdiction between the Commonwealth and the state. Mr. BARTON.-The Commonwealth will have the control of external arrangements. Mr. ISAACS.-If the Commonwealth does not pass a law, you admit the right of a state to deal with the subject.

10

15

Mr. WISE.-Undoubtedly. Mr. ISAACS.-But if the Commonwealth does pass a law, that law is paramount. Mr. WISE.-It is paramount. Mr. ISAACS.-What is the necessity for this sub-section then?

20

Mr. WISE.-I will answer that question in a moment. Until the Commonwealth passes a law relating to immigration the state has exclusive jurisdiction over that subject, and as long as the state jurisdiction can be exercised the state alone should be able to control the rights of the aliens in respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community. Mr. ISAACS.-That would not do, because we have already passed a provision which gives paramount power to the Federal Parliament.

25

Mr. WISE.-That is what I am pointing out, but until that power is exercised by the Federal Parliament jurisdiction remains with the state. The object of my amendment is to provide that the moment that power is exercised the regulation of the rights of the aliens in question shall be transferred from the state to the Commonwealth. Mr. ISAACS.-Would not that be so without any further provision?

30

Mr. WISE.-I do not think it would. Mr. BARTON.-Many of the persons in question are not aliens, but come in under the immigration power only. [start page 230]

35

Mr. WISE.-We hope to see the Commonwealth embrace the whole continent, and it might be found desirable to establish practically a colony in which black labour might be employed. Mr. BARTON.-There is no sub-section dealing with aliens except the one dealing with the naturalization of aliens. Mr. ISAACS.-The sub-section is naturalization and aliens."

40

Mr. WISE.-If it was found desirable to establish practically a colony in which black labour might be employed, the Commonwealth would, and ought to, have the exclusive power of providing for the passage of those alien labourers from that colony into the southern parts of the Commonwealth if they were allowed, for temporary purposes, to remove from the northern to the southern colonies, and they should be absolutely 7-8-2011 Page 32 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

under the protection of the powers of the Commonwealth. But until the Commonwealth has passed a law dealing with the emigration of alien labour from one colony to another, it is only right that the state should retain the power it now possesses in regard to aliens.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is passing from one colony into another immigration within the meaning of this Act? Mr. WISE.-I think so. Under the terms of my amendment it certainly is. Mr. ISAACS.-Your amendment would not touch the class who are not aliens. Mr. WISE.-Yes, it would, because the Commonwealth would have no power to pass any law relating to the immigration of any section of the community unless they were aliens. The Commonwealth Parliament is to have no power to deal with the movement of population except paupers, lunatics, and aliens, and under section 52 it is to exercise full powers with regard to any or all of those three classes. All that is designed by my amendment-and it appears to me that some such power is necessary-is that if the Commonwealth Parliament undertakes to deal with the movement of population in regard to one or more of those three classes-paupers, aliens, and lunatics-the persons whose movements are fettered by the Federal Parliament shall have the right to look to the Federal Parliament for protection, and for the full security that the Federal Parliament can give. The words of the clause are vague, and not very easily construed. Of course, if the leader of the Convention prefers it, I will postpone the formal submission of my amendment so as to give further time for the consideration of the matter. Mr. BARTON.-We had better leave it over for consideration.

10

15

20

Mr. WISE.-Then I will merely give it as a suggested amendment for consideration rather than formally propose it now. Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The difficulty is to determine why this particular sub-section should find its way into this clause instead of forming a sub-section of the previous clause 52.

25

Mr. BARTON.-Because the powers in clause 52 are all concurrent powers, and these are all exclusive powers. Mr. DEAKIN.-I understood that was the difference, and a glance at the following two sub-sections of clause 53 shows that they are matters upon which the Federal Parliament will have sole authority, and upon which, naturally enough, the local Parliaments never could have, or expect to have, any authority. But, although this provision is linked with them and placed in the exclusive clause, it deals with questions which are being dealt with, which have been dealt with, and which probably in the future will be dealt with by the several states. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-And in which aspects they can only be dealt with by the several states. Mr. DEAKIN.-If so, this sub-section has found its way into the wrong clause, and should be included in clause 52 rather than in clause 53. We have Acts in some of the colonies relating to the Chinese; in other colonies there are, or may be, Acts relating to Afghans. In the northern colonies there are statutes relating to kanakas. All this legislation is [start page 231] in existence at present, and the leader of the Convention admits that, until the passing of an Act by the Federal Parliament dealing with these people, the several Acts of the several Legislatures relating to these several peoples would remain in force. Mr. KINGSTON.-So they would if this sub-section is passed.

30

35

40

Mr. DEAKIN.-If so, this provision is not exclusive in the strict sense of the term. Mr. WISE.-I doubt if they would remain in force. Mr. KINGSTON.-But they are preserved. Mr. DEAKIN.-There is the first issue. That is the first point we have to determine. Clearly, it would be most unwise and unwarrantable to propose that, on the establishment of a Commonwealth, all laws relating to aliens should be repealed, because there would be a certain interregnum when there might be a condition of relative lawlessness. 7-8-2011 Page 33 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

45

Mr. WISE.-The amendment I propose will get over that difficulty, because it does not give the Commonwealth power until it passes a law in respect of the immigration of aliens into, or their emigration from, any part of the Commonwealth.

10

15

Mr. DEAKIN.-I am not certain that, while the honorable member's amendment will relieve us from one difficulty, it will not plunge us into another, by depriving the states of all future power of dealing with alien races. What more power do we desire for the Federation in regard to these special races than would be conveyed to the Commonwealth by the inclusion of this subsection in clause 52? What power is it that we desire to give to the Commonwealth in this matter which would not be given if there were a properly expressed sub-section introduced into clause 52, enabling the Commonwealth to legislate in regard to these matters, and casting the duty of legislating in respect of them on the Commonwealth; but until the Commonwealth passes such legislation, leaving the existing legislation of the colonies in full force and effect, and, still leaving to the colonies power to pass special legislation on the subject, in so far as it did not conflict with the federal legislation? I think it is highly desirable that such provision should be made. I am not satisfied that the state of opinion in these colonies is at that even level which would enable us at once to pass an Act, complete in every particular, and applying to the whole group. It might conflict with what was absolutely vital, for example, to Queensland, and we all hope that Queensland will eventually become a part of the Federation. Mr. KINGSTON.-Section 100 preserves the existing legislation.

20

25

30

Mr. DEAKIN.-Yes; and section 101 provides that when a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. But that only brings me back to my first difficulty. Why is this sub-section included in clause 53, instead of in clause 52, and what is the effect of that arrangement? The other matters under clause 53 are clearly matters on which the Federal Parliament alone can legislate-matters on which the state Parliament could never pass legislation. This sub-section, on the contrary, relates to an issue already dealt with by the several states, and that will continue to be dealt with by them unless the absolute prohibition of this Act is imposed. If it is imposed it will be a very serious matter indeed in Queensland, Victoria, and, I think also, in New South Wales. The first question I have to put to the leader of the Convention, and upon the answer to it any further arguments I may have to address will depend, is what reason there is under these circumstances for including this in clause 53? Ought we not to transfer it again to clause 52? We desire to give to the Federal Parliament the amplest power to deal with any and all of these particular races; but there should still be reserved to the states, subject always to the supremacy of the Federation, a power to deal in any special manner with any of the people of such races who are now or may hereafter be [start page 232] within their limits. I take it the amendment proposed by Mr. Wise would absolutely prohibit that. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100. Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. The amendment proposed by Mr. Wise is one that might possibly be considered desirable if this were to be converted into really a power that was not exclusive. At any rate, it might have the effect of rendering that power exclusive after legislation with regard to aliens and immigration had been adopted. I am not quite sure at present whether it would be advisable to adopt the amendment. I agree with what has been said already. My impression is stronger than ever it was before that this sub-section is one that needs amendment, but I would like to say again that it is desirable that the moment the Constitution comes into force the policy of this sub-section should prevail, which is that the Commonwealth should have exclusive legislative powers with reference to the affairs of such people as the sub-section is intended to cover. That is demonstrated to me by the fact that the Commonwealth will have control of the external relations of the whole of the continent and of Tasmania. These external relations may be very pertinent to any legislation that will have to be adopted, so that you may have the complication, if you do not insert a provision of this kind, of having the states continuing to legislate in respect to a matter in which they have no responsibility, while the external relations, the explanation of all these matters, and the responsibility for them to the Imperial Government, will rest with the Commonwealth. That would be an undesirable condition of things. There are other reasons which could be put very strongly if it were necessary to speak at length, and which would show that the Commonwealth should have this exclusive power. Questions which relate to the whole body of the people, to the purity of race, to the preservation of the racial 7-8-2011 Page 34 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

character of the white population, are Commonwealth questions, and should be so exclusively. Of course it may be urged that it would be better for the Commonwealth to wait until it had exercised its legislative powers with regard to aliens and immigration. I venture to dissent from that view. I do not know why it is necessary for the Commonwealth to wait until it has legislated with regard to the introduction of aliens, or of coloured races not being aliens, before it deals with the affairs of those people of coloured race who are already settled in Australia. If that were so, we should for the time being be left with out exclusive powers with regard to the large number of people of coloured race already in Australia. Now, the preservation of every inch of the shores of Australia from immigration of the kind indicated, except to a certain limited extent, is one of the most desirable powers to place in the Constitution. But the very reason which makes the preservation of the continent as a continent to the Federation as a whole Federation so necessary as one of the powers is a reason that applies with just as much force to the affairs of the people of such races who have already been admitted and are at present in the Commonwealth. If it is necessary to give the Federal Parliament power to make laws for their regulation, not applying to the rest of the people of the Commonwealth, it is necessary to give it at once upon the establishment of the Commonwealth. The best way to bring about legislation of that kind is to make the power exclusive. The Commonwealth will then be in this position: The laws which at present pertain [start page 233] in the states with reference to these people will remain with nothing in them which is against the interests of the Commonwealth, unless the Commonwealth at once legislates. To make the power exclusive conduces at once to its speedy exercise by the Commonwealth. For every reason this provision should not be transferred to clause 52, but should be implanted in the Commonwealth as an instant, mild exclusive power. Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-While, I quite agree with the, views of the leader of, the Convention as to this power so far as regards the immigration of coloured races and aliens, I cannot see the force of his argument with reference to the local management of these people. Aliens who have been admitted within our shores will more or less permanently settle in one state or the other, and they should, I think, be entirely under the Government of the state in which for the time being they reside. Mr. Deakin has hinted at some grave objections to giving the Federal Government an exclusive power over these people. The Attorney-General of Victoria has given one very striking example of the necessity of the Governments of the states having authority in this matter, and that is as regards, the licensing of Afghans as hawkers. It is the practice to issue to them a licence different from that which is given to other races. That might very well constitute a difficult question in the state of Victoria, whilst it might not be of the same importance in other states. In Tasmania it is quite possible that it may come to be a grave question whether the Hindostanese who are British subjects shall be allowed to continue the practice of hawking as they have been doing for some time past. That might develop into a very large question indeed in Tasmania, and it should be a matter for settlement by the state and not by the Federal Government. Sir GEORGE TURNER (Victoria).-I trust the leader of the Convention, will carefully reconsider his position, and the apparently strong views be holds with regard to persons of foreign race. I agree with Sir Edward Braddon, and other honorable members who have spoken, that when these people are once admitted to Australia their control and management should be strictly a local affair. It is not a matter with which the Federal Government should interfere. The Government of this and of other colonies should have full power to make such laws relating to health, to factories, and to the licensing of these persons as they may deem to be fair, just, and reasonable. The great difficulty I see with regard to this clause is in connexion with the making of the power exclusive. If we put this provision in clause 52, as soon as the Federal Parliament chose to exercise its power to legislate, the state laws now in existence would cease to exist. Mr. KINGSTON.-Does the honorable member say that they would lapse? Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Yes, if they were inconsistent with the federal laws. We must all realize that the first and most important business with which the Federal Parliament will have to deal will be that connected with the Tariff and other financial matters. Can we assume that for same years at least the Federal Parliament will attempt to deal with the matter mentioned in the first paragraph of this clause? For probably three, four, or five years, we shall then be in this peculiar position: The Federal, Parliament alone will have the power to legislate upon these matters, The state Parliaments will have no power to legislate, because of the exclusive power of the Federal Parliament, and thus, although there may be an absolute necessity for legislation, none will be possible. Surely honorable members will not agree to a provision which makes such a position possible. If, however, we place this provision in clause 52, the Federal Parliament would have the most ample powers to deal with the matter to which it relates whenever it chose to exercise them; but, in the meantime, the right of the states [start page 234] to regulate these matters would be preserved to them. I do not desire to move any amendment for this purpose, but I trust that the leader of the Convention will carefully 7-8-2011 Page 35 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

reconsider the matter, because I feel that if we pass the provision as it stands, we may hereafter do a great injustice to the several states. Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I think it is generally admitted that there should be uniformity of law with regard to the races for whom it is necessary to make special laws. The basis of all these laws is that the particular people in question require to be dealt with specially in the general interests of the community, and if they require to be dealt with specially they should be dealt with under some uniform law. I think it will also be admitted that if they are to be dealt with by a uniform law the sooner that law is put into operation the better. Otherwise one state may deal with some particular class of aliens upon specially favorable terms, the effect of which would be that aliens from all parts of Australia would congregate in that state and make the difficulty of dealing with the whole question very much greater. I think that is admitted by Sir George Turner. It is admitted by him that there should be uniformity in these laws, but he says that if the Federal Parliament does not choose to legislate at once power ought to be given to the local Parliaments to deal with the question until the Federal Parliament chooses to legislate. I should like, however, to remind the honorable member of this fact: In the first place, where any local Parliament has made laws, those laws are continued by clause 100, and, as a matter of fact, most of the Parliaments have made laws in regard to these matters. The point at issue is: Is it desirable that the state should have power to go on making separate laws dealing with aliens until the Federal Parliament shall legislate? Mr. ISAACS.-Why not?

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mr. OCONNOR.-If the Federal Parliament is endowed with this power absolutely, there is no doubt that pressure will be brought by all the states to cause that body to legislate upon this matter at once, and it will legislate upon it. But if the states have power to deal with these matters locally they may in many cases avail themselves of this power, and when the Federal Parliament comes to deal with the subject, and to apply an uniform law, it will be met by the vested interests which have been created by the laws of the states. I say that we should have as few difficulties of that kind as possible. Let us deal with these matters as they exist at the date of the establishment of the Commonwealth. Where laws exist at the time of the adoption of this Constitution they will be preserved; but do not let us give power to the states to make new laws which will create new difficulties and complications. That is my reason for differing from the view of Sir George Turner that this provision should be transferred from amongst the exclusive powers of the Federal Parliament to the powers conferred under clause 52. I should like to add a word in regard to the suggestion of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Wise). No matter what the necessity for uniformity in these laws may be, the honorable and learned member says that you must wait until some law has been made by the Commonwealth in regard to these particular races. But why should we wait? What possible connexion is there between the making of a law preventing aliens from entering the state and the making of a law to control their mode of living while in that state? I can see no necessary connexion between the two. It seems to me that it would be hampering the power of the Federal Parliament to make it a condition precedent to legislation with regard to aliens within the borders of the Commonwealth, that it should legislate with regard to outside matters. For instance, if you wish to deal with the question of legislation regarding Chinese or Japanese actually here, there would be very little difficulty, but if you wish to make a law dealing with [start page 235] their introduction into the state, you may be brought face to face with the obligations of treaties entered into by Great Britain and other difficulties of that kind which cannot be surmounted. Mr. ISAACS.-The same thing exists now. Mr. OCONNOR.-That does not apply to dealings with races within your own territory. When other people come within your borders they must submit to your laws.

45

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-These laws must relate to the time when they are within your territory, because the distinction is drawn between them and the general community. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, but I am dealing with the amendment of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Wise). He wishes to make it a condition precedent that what may be the very difficult step of passing a law making arrangements with the outside world should be taken before you deal with aliens within your own borders. Mr. DEAKIN.-Everything the honorable member expresses a wish to do could be done quite as well if this provision formed part of clause 52. 7-8-2011 Page 36 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

50

Mr. OCONNOR.-I agree with the honorable and learned member, but I do not think that any opportunity should be given to the state to make laws dealing with these matters before the Legislature of the Commonwealth has dealt with them, for the reason that every law which is made dealing specially with a matter of this kind will create difficulties when a uniform law comes to be made.

Mr. DEAKIN.-The Federal Parliament can remove them. Mr. OCONNOR.-But you are setting up obstacles to uniformity and creating vested interests, which are always difficult to deal with. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Unless this clause is carefully reconsidered, we shall have to vote against it. Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not suppose the honorable member would suggest that the clause is unnecessary.

10

Mr. DEAKIN.-It is out of place. Mr. OCONNOR.-The question is as to its position. The honorable member objects to its position. Sir GEORGE: TURNER.-Yes. Mr. OCONNOR.-With regard to the amendment of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Wise), I think the general sense of the committee will be that it is a matter of substance with which possibly the committee will deal. With regard to the position of the sub-section, that is no doubt a matter of importance, but it need not necessarily be decided now. Mr. ISAACS.-That question means whether it is to be exclusive or not. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If we allow the provision to stand where it is proposed to put it, it will be decisive.

15

20

Mr. OCONNOR.-Well, it appears to me in the right place. Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-I respectfully submit in connexion with this clause that the necessity for legislation in regard to aliens differs in the various colonies, and to give to the Federal Parliament exclusive powers to legislate would produce inconvenience. This is obviously so, for the reason that what is necessary in one state in connexion with the treatment of aliens may be altogether unnecessary and perhaps inconvenient in another state. Assuming that such contingencies may arise, any uniform legislation must work to the detriment of some state; whereas if, as suggested by Sir George Turner, it is made optional on the part of the Federal Parliament, wherever any great pressure arises, or a necessity for uniform legislation occurs, to legislate, then the Federal Parliament will undoubtedly take the question up and by its act achieve exclusive control in that connexion so far as it chooses to legislate. But even then it may leave to local autonomy to deal with the question in some connexion in a manner which may be [start page 236] necessitated by the different circumstances of different localities. Take the colony of Victoria. We have legislation in the form of a new Factories and Shops Act, which affects the Chinese in a manner such as no other colony has yet thought it necessary to affect them. It may happen that no other colony will think it necessary to legislate in that way. But there can be no reason why the legislation which is thought necessary by the Victorian people should not be permitted to continue in Victoria. I have given this illustration because it appears to me that the circumstances of different localities may involve different necessities in connexion with the treatment of aliens. It maybe possible that in South Australia, or in New South Wales, or Tasmania, it may be necessary to take some action with reference to aliens that may be extremely beneficial to those colonies, and inconvenient or possibly irksome in Victoria. If the sub-section is, as suggested, taken from its present position and placed in clause 52, it will leave power for the states to legislate as they think proper until the Federal Parliament sees the necessity for bringing about some degree of uniformity. I would submit to honorable members that the whole of our work points to the necessity for giving nothing to the Federal Parliament to do that can be as well done in the interests of the states by the States themselves. What we are endeavouring to do is to constitute a new power which shall do some things which we cannot do as well as separate states. But we wish to avoid handing over to the new power anything that will take from us that sovereignty we now possess, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. It does not seem to me to be necessary to make it imperative in the Constitution that the sovereignty of the states or their local autonomy in this connexion shall be removed. If the Federal Parliament does not wish to legislate on the subject the local Parliaments should have the power to legislate as their local requirements dictate. 7-8-2011 Page 37 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mr. DOBSON.-They can do that now. Mr. TRENWITH.-They cannot do it if we carry this clause. Mr. DOBSON.-Yes they can.

Mr. TRENWITH.-It seems to me that immediately the Constitution is adopted the local Parliaments can no longer carry any legislation into existence upon this subject-that they cannot perform one act of legislation after the Constitution is effected. Mr. DOBSON.-Read clause 100. They can go on altering or repealing, if they like. Mr. TRENWITH.-It seems to me that if you use in this Constitution the term exclusive power" that means that you exclude all others, and once that power is created there is no other power to legislate. I confess that in a Convention such as this, where we have so many and such able lawyers, I speak with great diffidence upon such a subject. Mr. ISAACS.-Clause 100 would not permit new legislation on the subject. Mr. DOBSON.-It could be altered to permit that to be done.

10

15

Mr. TRENWITH.-I think we should remove this clause, and then we should not require to alter clause 100. Give exclusive power where it is essential in respect to such matters as may be deemed to be necessary to be dealt with by the central authority. That seems to me to be extremely necessary. This is an extremely perplexing question, and one which has given perhaps as much trouble as any other question to the various states. Mr. KINGSTON.-It should be an Australian question, should it not?

20

Mr. TRENWITH.-For some purposes. Mr. KINGSTON.-For all purposes. END QUOTE

25

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions of this constitution. We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good 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 opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people 7-8-2011 Page 38 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.

10

END QUOTE . Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: With respect to the qualification of the electors-a subject discussed in this Convention-the proposal of the committee is that it shall be the same as that for the electors for the more numerous branch of the parliament of each state. END QUOTE

15

20

25

. It must be clear that the whole intention of the 1967 con-job referendum to amends51(xxvi) to enable Aboriginals to vote was totally misconceived and without due and proper regard to what was constitutionally applicable. As with litigation where both parties are engaging QCs (lawyers) etc and both parties given legal advice that they are in the right in the end one set of the lawyers will be proven wrong. As such, never trust legal advice that it will be the ultimate vindication because so many litigants despite legal advice ended up in the poor house losing all while the lawyers themselves were the once getting rich. Indeed the Framers of the Constitution warned against this also! . Therefore, when dealing with constitutional matters a lawyer is more than likely the last person you may seek to rely upon because generally they are misconceiving matters because they consider matters as lawyers and not as a open minded constitutionalist! Again:.
. Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE

30

. 35
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE

40

45

50

. WHILE LAWYERS COULD BE USED TO SAY DRAFT LEGISLATION AND ANY AMENDMENTS SUCH AS PROPOSED FOR A REFERENDUM IT ULTIMATELY REQUIRES A CONSTITUTIONALIST TO ASSESS IF WHAT IS PROPOSED IS ACTUALLY CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE! . We have for example the Federal Government spending more than $12 million on advertising as to a proposed CARBON TAX yet no one seems to have bothered to consider the constitutional validity of it in the first place. And this is just one example. I would therefore recommend that before any Parliament contemplates to legislate or to deal with a proposed amendment of any constitution it first consult a CONSTITUTIONALIST and not some lawyer pretending to be a CONSTITUTIONALIST merely upon the basis of having obtained some law degree. . It is to me disgraceful that the government is playing havoc with people, not just with Aboriginals and this merely for political gain then to ensure that in the first place they consult a competent CONSTITUTIONALIST before raising the hopes of others only to
7-8-2011 Page 39 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

waste in the process a lot of taxpayers monies out of Consolidated Revenue Funds and this for gross deception upon us all. . While I am aware any committee can so to say seek to railroad my submission but any committee would do better to seek to disprove what I am submitting and not merely by assuming something but actually prove by quotations that the Framers of the Constitution intended otherwise then I present as failing to do so my submission can only be left to be accepted as to validate that amending any constitution must be done after a vigorous and extensive investigation not just as to what is sought to be achieved but also applying so to say the Devil Advocate and try to work out how it can be used contrary to what is intended. Obviously to be able to do so one must be a CONSTITUTIONALIST as clearly those who do not understand let alone comprehend what the constitution stands for would never then grasp how adverse san amendment could be used. With s51(xxvi) the lack of knowledge as to any legislation within a race provision to automatically disqualify the persons of that race to maintain citizenship and so franchise underlines that to play Devil Advocate without knowing other constitutional issues well be a failure of proper consideration to the proposed amendment. . http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-recent.html is a website that seems to be dealing with Aboriginal matters but a brief look at it didnt appear to me to be useful when it comes to matters set out above. And this I have often found to be the problem with a lot of people promoting to so to say fight the cause of Aboriginals but when it comes to the real issues they are failing to act on what is needed because they all have their own misconceptions and it is beyond me and neither my obligation to try to educate them all. However it would be advisable if those who do pursue or pretend to pursue Aboriginal issues they first make an effort to try to comprehend what is constitutionally applicable and also do consider matters not just from an Aboriginal point of view but from but also from a general point of view. After all where children were removed from any Aboriginal because of genuine welfare concerns as like any other family would have eventuated then one must not include this as constituting children wrongly removed because to do so would undermine the validity of claims. As was proven that some Elder claiming to be of the so called Stolen generation actually had been voluntarily handed over to pursue a better opportunity in life then such a person claiming the falsehood of being of the so called Stolen generation is very damaging to the Aboriginals who may have been actually wrongly removed. And, the term Stolen Generation in my view is a misuse of the word generation as not all children were wrongly removed! Where indeed is the apology of the Aboriginals who neglected their children and by this so to say stained other Aboriginals by their conduct? Blaming just others but not Aboriginals cannot be accepted because many Aboriginals contributed to the views of the general community in past times by their own conduct. Also miss reporting add to problems and misconceptions. I recall that about 20 years ago I used to spend hours At a campfire with Aboriginals at St Kilda, where the Elder made known to me that he had a flat in Elwood but liked to sleep with other Aboriginals at the campfire. Yet, the media reported that they were homeless Aboriginals no place to call home and that they badly needed accommodation. Again the elder had made clear to me he had a n expensive place in Elwood and didnt need to sleep under the tree but did so on his own violation. We also should consider that so to say a hell of a lot of money is being spend on Aboriginals for whatever causes and special additional Aboriginal law centres whereas other races, being it chines or whatever have no such equal service. Now, this is why so many people are starting more and more to resent Aboriginals in what they are pursuing because even so incorrectly the provisions of 51(xxvi) is ongoing used about Aboriginals and to some extend Torres Strait
7-8-2011 Page 40 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Islanders but somehow other races are being ignored. When at Austin Hospital (Victoria) it was notable that for Aboriginals there are special provisions and one has to ask why if they desire equality or is it really that Aboriginals do not want to live equally amongst other Australians but desire to get special treatment while, so to say, screaming blue murder if they are not getting equal treatment otherwise? It should be kept in mind that like it or not but because of migration of numerous races, not just Caucasians, the Commonwealth of Australia has become as to what it is now and without the influx of all others Australia would never have been as it is now. It were the Dutch who first did bring common law into New Holland and the British subsequently presented their kind of common law and other legal provisions and regardless if anyone likes it or not lets us accept that we are all better off in general and instead of having ongoing divisions we should embrace what we have as a community and seek to advance provisions of those who still are not provided equally with the same. It makes not one iota of difference if a child living in a remote area is Aboriginal or not when it comes to health and other services as provisions of health, education, etc, should be available for all Australians regardless of to which race they belong to. (Only when we accept this, and this principle clearly being embedded in the constitution we will never resolve the issues and Aboriginals themselves can only be blaming themselves to have refused to be part of the general community as again they themselves supported the amendment of s51(xxvi) of the constitution and by this losing their citizenship and so their franchise and unless Aboriginals accept they themselves contributed to the problems conflicts will never be resolve3d and amending the preamble will be a window dressing exercise without any real change for those Aboriginals who are still and will continue to suffer. When we look at how many houses have been vandalized by aboriginals at huge cost of tax payers then it is useless to blame todays society for this as we do not force down the troth of Aboriginals their grog, etc. Let Aboriginals first take care of themselves instead of blaming others for all their ills. When two people are drunk on the street but one is an Aboriginal then you will find that authorities have a complex legal process to follow when it comes to Aboriginals whereas the other person can be swiftly dealt with and this obviously causes division. When we then have the so called Koorie Schools and even separate courts to deal with Aboriginals, all obviously unconstitutional, then again we are having uncalled problems. Indeed we have a drawn out dispute where Yooralla (an organization looking after disabled children and adults regardless of race) now was faced to have delay of badly needed school expansion because of Aboriginals protest about having planted a trees ago, now calling it secret and to accept this kind of nonsense undermines in my view the real cause for Aboriginals. What we have is that the word Aboriginal in many ways has become a curse becuase of the abuse and misuse by many Aboriginals. Now do you really thing Australians are going to support any amendment of the preamble (besides it is not constitutionally possible as the constitution contains no preamble in the first place to be amended as it is the British Act itself that contains the preamble) when so many electors are totally fed up with the antics of many Aboriginals? . When I commenced to drive a taxi (more than 35 years ago) I had for the first time my experience with an Aboriginal who stepped in my cab and demanded me to drive him to a destination. I happen to ask him if he had monies to pay the fare and his comment was something like they own Australia and so he didnt have to pay. Well, he didnt get anywhere but to get out of my cab, that is for sure. Sop stop all this blaming game upon everyone but Aboriginals and accept that there are plenty of aboriginals who themselves are at fault. Who really would want Aboriginals be referred to in the p0reamble when their conduct is so disgraceful in many ways? Let us be clear about it there are many Aboriginals who one can proud upon and South Australia
7-8-2011 Page 41 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

proved that it even had a Governor of Aboriginal descent and so this isnt about Aboriginals not having equal opportunities but many rather seek to blame society for their ill conduct as if that is an excuse. I never knew anything about Aboriginals until after I migrated to Australia and my views have been much shaped by my personal experiences with Aboriginals, the good and the bad. Who would want to have Aboriginals referred to in the preamble one has to ask if this is associated with Aboriginals who are foul-mouthed and are promoting violence, etc? Well, I for one would not desire to support such an amendment where this may be a blot on the constitution because it are only the Aboriginals now living who seek to desire such recognition for themselves, as their own publications makes clear and so let them first show a united front in cleaning up their own acts so we all can be proud of them. Lets make it clear that I received emails from Aboriginals who simply didnt like my writings about constitutional AND ASSOCIATED WITH THREATS OF VILOLENCE AGAINST NON-ABORIGINALS! Worse is that the emails were claimed to be from persons allegedly representing all Aboriginals! Well, Aboriginals should understand that when they allow such kind of representation they are so to say not going to make friends and certainly not going to have electors supporting them to amend the constitution in any way as if anything non-Aboriginals will fear how Aboriginals may seek to use or better to state misuse this against non-Aboriginals. . Obviously as author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI I contemplate to publish the emails in due course, when further addressing Aboriginal issues. . For the above it seems to me that rather then to concentrate on how the preamble can be amended it would serve Aboriginals better if there was a participation amongst the general community, including Aboriginals to address current ill conduct wherever it comes from. .
http://treatyrepublic.net/content/entrenched-denial-aboriginal-equity-resides-section-25-commonwealthconstitution QUOTE Entrenched denial of Aboriginal equity resides in Section 25 of the Commonwealth Constitution
By Patrick Byrt, Human Rights Convenor ... Ultimately the linchpin to the process of entrenched denial of Aboriginal equity resides in the White Australia Policy foundation to the Australian Constitution and its institution in the six (6) Australian States (with their racist legislative powers under Section 25 of the ongoing racialist Australian Constitution), which empowers the Parliaments of the States to legislate to prevent the people of any race from voting for the Parliament of that State if so desired.

30

35

END QUOTE

This quotation is a clear example of how Aboriginals and others are deceived by an Aboriginal like Patric Byrt QC. 40 QUOTE 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting
For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not
7-8-2011 Page 42 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

45

be counted.

END QUOTE . Lets make it very clear section 25 was inserted at the time of framing the constitution and at that time s51(xxvi) excluded Aboriginals from Commonwealth legislation and as such s25 was never intended to be SPECIFICALLY EXCLUSIVE applied to Aboriginal. . When we therefore have this kind of misrepresentation to what the constitution, and so by a QC (Queens Councilor) then we have a major problem on our hands and .
http://treatyrepublic.net/content/entrenched-denial-aboriginal-equity-resides-section-25-commonwealthconstitution

10

QUOTE 15
For instance, if a State used such a power against the Aboriginal race as it was intended to be used, would a person of that race in that State be entitled to stand for Federal Parliament as a Senator for that State or as a candidate to be a Federal Representative in a Federal seat there?

20

END QUOTE . Note the wording as it was intended to be used . Again:


Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted. Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes. Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. END QUOTE

25

30

35

40

45

. Clearly this is not at all what the Framers of the Constitution contemplated as Patrick Byrt QC seeks to pretend. What the constitution made clear was that it was permissible for any State to determine its own franchise and if it had any special legislation on foot against any particular race, then obviously a state wouldnt want such a race to be able to vote to overturn the legislation against it. After all the same provision was embedded for the Federal system as to section 51(xxvi) and s127 didnt in itself prevent Aboriginals to exercise franchise as it was only relating to special legislation regarding a race within s51q(xxvi) and Aboriginals were not part of this until the 1967 con-job referendum so much p7ursued by Aboriginals themselves. . Way back in 2004 I worked together with Patrick Byrt QC to achieve the following draft flag to recognise all different races within the Commonwealth of Australia!

50

7-8-2011 Page 43 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

. Ever since I used thi8s also in my letterheads as a promotion. . Likewise so I use the following also:

7-8-2011 Page 44 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

. This as to indicate how the Commonwealth of Australia is conducted as a banana republic! 5


http://treatyrepublic.net/content/entrenched-denial-aboriginal-equity-resides-section-25-commonwealthconstitution QUOTE The push for stripping away any residual rights of the Aboriginal people to the minerals beneath their lands was initiated nationally in South Australia by its "Reformist" Premier Don Dunstan, who got the SA Parliament to pass legislation during his period as Premier of Labor government to abrogate such rights in fee simple holders to own the minerals under the ground, which until then were in common law a part of the ownership of freehold land. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

. Again this statement is in my view deceptive as DON DUNSTAN became Premier of South Australia long after the 1967 con-job s51(xxvi) was held and as such it was beyond legislative powers of the South Australia government to specifically legislate as to Aboriginals regarding land titles where it wasnt applicable to other Australians. . This just underlines that Aboriginals would do better to seek to correct those, even if they are lawyers, as to what they profess because stirring the pot just for seeking political support for an Aboriginal political party isnt going to benefit the real cause and neither diminish the suffering of many Aboriginals. Again, who would want to support any amendment of the preamble when we have stirrers around who are misleading Aboriginals and others and so rather are causing division rather than seeking to unite Australians regardless of race? .
21.

Australian Labor News - Let's move Australia forward


... news and transcripts of Australian Labor and the Gillard ... I recently approved grants from the Aboriginal Benefits ... Richard Marles posted Wednesday, 27 July 2011 www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/speech--jenny-macklin... - Cached

30

. As the Commonwealth is to provide for uniform legislation then again this clearly is violated with how the Commonwealth provides certain grants. 35

1. Abolition of Constitution's race power in frame


than the 2013 election. Ms Gillard appointed indigenous activist Patrick Dodson and lawyer Mark Leibler to heada "statement of values" to be inserted in either a preamble or the body of the Constitution 18 May 2011 |The Australian > National Affairs |Article| Find related

40

2.

PM told not to go too hard on reform


indigenous people in the preamble to the Constitution and a new agreement-making power underwhich the commonwealth could enter into agreements with Aboriginal people that would have the force of law. The release 45
19 May 2011 |The Australian > Business > Industry Sectors |Article| Find related

7-8-2011 Page 45 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

1.

Parties not bound by indigenous plan

Gillard to examine the issue -- and go beyond the promise to only allow recognition in a new preamble. Mrhad appointed the panel to help lead the process towards the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait 5 .
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abolition-of-constitutions-race-power-in-frame/story-fn59niix1226058567196 QUOTE Abolition of Constitution's race power in frame Patricia Karvelas From:The Australian May 19, 201112:00AM

1 Feb 2011 |The Australian > In-depth > Aboriginal Australia |Article| Find related

10

15

THE Constitution would be stripped of its race power, obligate the government to make formal deals with indigenous Australians on land and cultural issues and include a broad "statement of values" under options proposed by Julia Gillard's advisory panel. A discussion paper by the Prime Minister's Expert Panel on the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, to be released today, will frame consultations on a referendum to be held no later than the 2013 election. Ms Gillard appointed indigenous activist Patrick Dodson and lawyer Mark Leibler to head the panel, which has offered a broad spectrum of ideas for constitutional change. These include a "statement of values" to be inserted in either a preamble or the body of the Constitution. It would incorporate recognition of indigenous people alongside a description of the Australian people's "fundamental values, such as a commitment to democratic beliefs, the rule of law, gender equality, and acknowledgement of freedoms, rights and responsibilities".

20

25

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage Use Facebook for constitution debate The Australian, 1 day ago Support for indigenous recognition The Australian, 10 days ago Origin stars help recruit indigenous foster carers The Australian, 27 Jun 2011 Survey raises the option of MP quota The Australian, 20 May 2011 Race power 'a shield for society' The Australian, 19 May 2011

30

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. The discussion paper says the statement could be similar to the pledge new citizens are required to make. This approach has been adopted by Queensland in its state constitution.

35

The panel concedes that although mainly a symbolic act, adding a statement could have legal consequences, depending on form and content. "This is a complex area on which the panel will be seeking legal advice," it says. The first option raised has the most bipartisan support: adding a preamble to the Constitution that recognises Aboriginal and

40

Torres Strait Islander peoples' "distinct cultural identities, prior ownership and custodianship of their lands and waters". 7-8-2011 Page 46 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

The panel proposes several changes around the removal or improvement of the race power, which allows the commonwealth to make special laws for Aborigines or any race. The panel argues that, although the commonwealth has passed the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, it does not have the strength of a constitutional amendment because parliament can repeal or amend it at any time.

Other options include repealing the race power or amending it so it can be used only to make laws for the benefit or advancement of indigenous peoples and other racial groups. Another option is to insert a guarantee of non-discrimination and racial equality for all Australians; and to create a new head of power authorising laws on the culture, historical disadvantage and unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

10

It says that, although one of the most common suggestions for reform of the race power is to amend it so that it can be used only for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the word "benefit", it says, "would be subject to judicial interpretation". The paper also raises the option of repealing Section 25, a provision that creates the possibility that state governments might exclude some Australians from voting in state elections on the basis of their race. It also raises the option of a new agreement-making power - arguably the most controversial idea in the paper. Under the plan the federal government would be able to enter into agreements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that would "have the force and effect of commonwealth law". "Agreements could apply to a range of issues, such as education agreements, agreements for the protection of cultural heritage, and agreements on rights to land," the paper says.

15

20

"The Senate committee suggested that a new provision along these lines could be similar in form to Section 105A of the Constitution, which currently provides constitutional backing for financial agreements reached between the commonwealth and the states, and guarantees that the agreements can only be modified by further agreement between the parties involved, not by legislation." The paper says many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people believe they have never had an equal relationship with governments or parliaments when decisions about them, their culture, land or rights have been determined. The report also reveals the results of a Newspoll conducted in February that found that 75 per cent of people support some kind of constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The panel has given itself four guiding principles: that change must contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation; it must be of benefit to and accord with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; it must be capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of people from across the political and social spectrums; and it must be technically and legally sound. END QUOTE

25

30

. Posted by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka 7-8-2011 at 1.44 am 35


QUOTE As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have grave concerns as to what is proposed because as set out at my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati we will not really know how any amendment will be used at a later time and then can be manipulated to horrific consequences not anticipated at this moment. Basically politicians seek a free hand to do whatever they like and I for one would oppose any such amendments. Just remember the No Carbon Tax versus the spin we now get and you will perhaps realize that you cannot trust anything what is stated! END QUOTE QUOTE The panel proposes several changes around the removal or improvement of the race power, which allows the commonwealth to make special laws for Aborigines or any race. END QUOTE

40

45

50

. Within the current context of the constitution the Northern Territory Intervention Act is unconstitutional but it seems that those promoting amending the constitution rather than to
7-8-2011 Page 47 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

resolve the problems for Aboriginals now want to hand more powers to the Commonwealth to validate legislation such as the Northern Territory Intervention act. Now, this underlines that those involved in the panel of experts simply fail to understand and comprehend what they are promoting and how this in real would affect Aboriginals to their detriment. 5 I for one cannot see how they could be any validity to deny a state to decide its own franchise. And as such amending s25 as to delete it couldnt prevent States to deny franchise to any person it doesnt want to provide any franchise to. Again, they had done better to consult a real CONSTITUTIONALIST to avoid this kind of nonsense as all it does now is to create further apathy towards Aboriginals as to enforce the fear that the Commonwealth may love to give away what belongs to all Australians, if just to gain political millage from it, well that is what might be their real intentions albeit they may give it a spin to pretend otherwise. We got some so to say crazy ideas going around that somehow Aboriginals may be able to oust non-Aboriginals of their Fee Simple entitlements and to me this is a very serious issue. Whatever Julia Gillard may claim to be applicable her reliability should be measured as to her claim during the election there be no Carbon Tax under a Gillard government and the change to the real Julia and we learned it was all fakes. One would therefore be an utter fool to trust her on anything she states because she will soon or later make a spin to claim she didnt really state what she did as it has a different meaning. Lets be clear about it that I urge any elector to vote against any amendment of the preamble where we have currently this kind of nonsense going on because before we seek to amend the constitution we better be aware how this might impact upon non-Aboriginals and not that Aboriginals are going to issues this amendment for ulterior purposes such as seeking to advance their status detrimental to non-Aboriginal Australians, being it in litigation or otherwise. . . It should be understood that the insertion of the race powers within s51(xxvi) had a special purpose and to remove this from the constitution rather than to rectify the con-job referendum could prove to be in the end to be di8ssasterous and not something that be contemplated by those who are not CONSTITUTIONALIST as I am. Givi8ng the free hand to the federal government could very well lead to some day someone being in power and use this as to say lock up all Aboriginals and deprive them of their rights, etc, and without any Parliament to prevent this to happen because once the constitution provides for this free hand of government then the government no longer is accountable to the Parliament and we have disposed of responsible government as we now know it. Referendums generally are to give Parliamentarians more powers and not at all to enhance the rights of electors! Those who follow my writings in my books or otherwise will be well aware that it would be utter and total stupidity to provide such extensive unchecked powers to a Government of the Day and could rather plunge the Commonwealth of Australia into CIVIL WAR because it will turn out to be disastrous to many. .

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

7-8-2011 Page 48 Submission re amending preamble re Aboriginals PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com 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 Free downloads of co9nstitutional related documents from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati