You are on page 1of 20

Julia Gillard, PM Email c/o "R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au" <R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.

au> 5

9-8-2011

10

Julia, This is a second part of my writings regarding a VELVET REVOLUTION so that we can achieve a return to what the constitution stands for and stop this DE FACTO kind of government as well as the abuse and misuse of judicial powers around Australia including that of the High Court of Australia.
.

15

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my aim is to restore the constitutional and other legal rights we Australians are entitled upon and to pursue that politicians will return to the fold of representing their constituents and not are in it to as some quick getting rich scheme for themselves and vandalise in the process what the constitution stands for.
.

20

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE

25

. It was reported, on 8-8-2011, via the media that the High Court of Australia extended its interim order to prevent certain people purportedly referred to as refugees (also referred to as boat people and/or economic refugees who are so to say window shopping) to be deported and allegedly criticised the government solicitor not to have his paperwork in order. Some of the issues regarding the refugee issues are to be considered: (Not stated in any order of importance! Is there a serious question as to the refugees to be deported? Is the Minister of Immigration the Legal guardian of unaccompanied minors? Is the swap at the expense of others? Are we breaching basic obligations of Human Rights? Is the High Court of Australia getting involved in political issues rather than to stick to legal issues? Are the judges of the High Court of Australia actually appropriately trained to interpret the true meaning and application of the constitution?

30

35

40
.

45

Let us see first of all what the Framers of the Constitution stated regarding the function of the judiciary and followed with what USA former President Thomas Jefferson warned about;
.

50

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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; 9-8-2011 Page 1 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE
.

10

15

HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON: It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or invest with federal jurisdiction. END QUOTE
.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

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 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
.

60

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 9-8-2011 Page 2 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

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
.

15

QUOTE Thomas Jefferson: "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.". END QUOTE
.

The above should be also understood in the context of the following;


.

20

25

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
.

30

35

40

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] END QUOTE

Then also consider the following:


.

45

50

55

60

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject? 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
.

9-8-2011 Page 3 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

It is therefore clear that the Privy Council way back before federation already determined that any sovereign state had the right to deny an alien to enter its territory and to force the undesirable alien to leave. With the Ah Toy case the ship that carried him was forced to take him away and at the time the then Prime Minister (Premier) of the colony NSW who opposed federation sought to make an issue out of it to argue against fe3deration by allowing Ah Toy to enter NSW and then sue the Colony of Victoria. However this backfired because the supreme court of the Colony of Victoria held that the Colony of Victoria was entitled to deny access to Ah Toy and as such had no legal standing to sue the Colony of Victoria and again the Privy Council on appeal upheld this decision. Upon federation these powers were provided to the Commonwealth of Australia acting for and on behalf of all the States. Therefore it must be beyond dispute that the Privy Councils decision is and remains to be applicable and the federal government is entitled to expel or otherwise refuse entry to any alien.
.

15
.

Are the judges of the High Court of Australia actually appropriately trained to interpret the true meaning?

20

In my past published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I exposed how the High Court of Australia at times was so to say concealing relevant details and otherwise fabricating a version of reason of judgment totally in conflict to what the true meaning and application of the constitution stands for. Indeed, a clear example was how the High court of Australia purported that the Magna Carta doesnt apply contrary to the various statements of the Framers of the Constitution that it would be applicable.
.

25

The same with the non-sensible statement as canvassed in my book;


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

. 023-Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED QUOTE index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635


QUOTE 070520 posting I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion; QUOTE McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. END QUOTE QUOTE But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. END QUOTE

35

40

45

END QUOTE . Again: QUOTE 50


But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.

55

END QUOTE . Now lets replace the wording blue-eyed baby with say Aboriginal and see how it then reads;
9-8-2011 Page 4 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Aboriginal killed if it wanted to.

. If this kind of statement instead had been made then there likely would have been an outcry by Aboriginals . Lets replace the wording with political opponent:
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every political opponent killed if it wanted to.

10

. And if we alter this to the word refugee then we would get: . 15


But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every refugee killed if it wanted to.

20

25

. Now lets make it clear if then we can substitute the wording, as after all the item referred to should make no difference, to the meaning of powers, then we can just slaughter every Aboriginal and then also every refugee who arrives without prior permission! . So, what is the High Court of Australia then about if on the one hand its implied statement allows the authorities to kill off whomever and then bother about children and/or adults if their wellbeing is appropriately provided for if deported. Surely if you accept the brutal killing of refugees then why bother about what happens if you do not kill them but deport them one may ask? Perhaps if we had substituted the wording blue-eye baby with judge as follows: .
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every judge killed if it wanted to.

30

35

. Now we might get the judiciary realising how utter disgraceful this statement was by a judge of the High Court of Australia! In my view it was sheer and total incompetence but regrettably this is not just an isolated case of this utter stupidity as there are too many to deal with in this document but lets look at the Magna Carta issue also: .
QUOTE McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. END QUOTE

40

. Getting back to the book;


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

45 .

Chapter 007A The Great Deception . QUOTE Chapter 007A The Great Deception 50 Chapter 007A The Great Deception * Gary, The Great Deception by whom?
9-8-2011 Page 5 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, just read the Chapter 034T of the book (published on 17-32007); 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD. ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6 was ISBN 0-9751760-4-3 QUOTE Chapter 034T 10 Gary, The Great Deception? INSPECTOR-RIKATI, this document also sets out how the judges of the High Court of Australia are deceiving us as to the application of the Constitution! It is to be read in conjunction with other documents such as Is our Constitution safe, The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE, etc. Anyhow, I quote below the document The Great Deception; The Great Deception 20 QUOTE I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally from the legal principles that are embedded in the Constitution. END QUOTE In my 2-8-2003 correspondence, published previously in my book (30 September 2003); INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed. ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X 30 I included the following, in regard of the issue of the detention of David Hicks;
QUOTE

15

25

35

40

http://store.yahoo.com/4crests/magnacarta.html When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws. This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and the sixth states

45
. . . the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares

50

55

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, . . . or in any other way destroyed . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice. In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede. Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People." 9-8-2011 Page 6 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Magna Carta (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

5
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

10
(49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

15

(51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms. (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

20 It is clear that the above stated applies forever. END QUOTE Since then the US Supreme Court handed down its decision that the Magna Charta does apply to the US Constitution. Lets now consider what the High Court of Australia stated in;
Transcript of High Court Appeal Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) McHUGH J: But is not the problem you face that the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688 are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way the Constitution is binding on those legislatures? Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution is entitled to legislate in total disregard of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, as is the United Kingdom Parliament. Take the situation in Northern Ireland. They abolished trial by jury in Northern Ireland. If you go back to Magna Carta which, I suppose, is really the heart of your argument, it is really more a statement of political ideals. They are not constitutional documents in the sense that the Australian Constitution and the United States Constitution are.

25

30

35

40

45

Well, the US Supreme Court has (since the publication of my book on 30-9-2003) clearly ruled that the Magna Charta is applicable to the US constitution. Now, lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated during the Constitution Convention Debates;
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

50

Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection to every citizen. Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already. Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way? Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions. 9-8-2011 Page 7 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State. Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.

10

Mr. OCONNOR.-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by any state if it chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of offences, or particular class of persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects of some wild impulse on the part of a majority of the community, and unjust laws were passedMr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition? Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not necessary to refer to.

15

Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna Charta? Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution? Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by an Act of the Federal Parliament?

20

Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the Constitution of the states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact any laws which it thought fit, and even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only dealing with a possibility, but at the same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might, would be very disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it. [start page 684]

25

Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate. HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. GLYNN.-I am now speaking of the English law. It has been somewhat modified in the Straits Settlements, and in one or two other parts of the empire, I believe, by giving a right of action for tort in certain cases, but I do not think that this extended right of action has ever been given in any of the colonies. Conditions justifying actions for damages against the Crown, however, are almost as frequent as actions for breach of contract. In Canada a man sued the Crown for damages received in connexion with a railway accident, but he was debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect in the railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen in the case I have already mentioned, thatWhere the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown, and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be obtained, compensation in money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods supplied to the Crown or to the public servicethe Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rights of action are given to the subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim against another subject. HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. DEAKIN.. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,

30

35

40

45

50

And Mr. DEAKIN.9-8-2011 Page 8 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

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.

10

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. 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. Again; the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed.

15

20

Therefore it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that the Magna Charta applied to the Constitution and it is not for the judges to then seek to amend the Constitution by their own judgment to deny this to be applicable. As much as the Magna Charta is applicable likewise so the Bill of Rights.

25

There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;


Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of expansion, not contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation. McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect whatever, and that is the doctrine of this Court. We do not make a decision as to whether the law is for the peace, for the order, for the good government. It is assumed that if Parliament makes it, it is, and the real question is, is it a law with the same respect to trade and commerce in other countries or whatever the relevant law of Parliament relies on, but this Court has never attempted to say that a law, on the subject of trade and commerce, for example, is not "for peace, order and good government". It is, in effect, a parliamentary expression rather than a legal expression. It does not limit Parliament's power; it is said to expand them. MR ESSENBERG: I am not really sure I understand that.

30

35

40

Now lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated, as set out more extensive in the document for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc in Chapter 034O
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

45

50

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I agree that these words appear rather startling. [start page 559] They are taken from the Federal Council Act of Australasia, and were inserted by the imperial authorities after consideration and in substitution for more limited words that were proposed by the Convention that met here in 1883. Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the federal parliament are only to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to adopt them. Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that if a ship leaves one of the Australian colonies for a British port, say London, having a British register, until she actually arrives in Great Britain, the laws of the commonwealth are binding upon her, and not the laws of Great Britain?

55

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the commonwealth outside the 3-mile limit could possibly apply. 9-8-2011 Page 9 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

And Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth.

HANSARD 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Mr. BARTON: That was the Convention which had, I think, to be called in consequence of the New Guinea affair. Sir Samuel went on:

10

Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the Federal Parliament are only to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to adopt them. Sir Samuel Griffith's reply to that interjection was;

15

No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the Commonwealth outside the three-mile limit could possibly apply. That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly affect any law of the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as they are not in conflict they will be applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of those laws of the Commonwealth which it is necessary to have enforced. HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

20

25

Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania: Omit the words "for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, lines 3, 4, and 5."

END QUOTE Chapter 007A The Great Deception


.

30

The above, and not even quoting the entire Chapter, of the book, makes it very clear that what the Thomas Jefferson stated;
.

35

QUOTE Thomas Jefferson: "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.". END QUOTE

. It may be stated that the book: 40


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

45

. Exposed what I consider deliberate conduct by the High Court of Australia to manipulate its legal powers to suit the then Government of the Day by handing down a decision it knew or ought to have known was deceptive and/or misleading by concealing relevant details. Is the High Court of Australia getting involved in political issues rather than to stick to legal issues?

50

. In my view the High Court of Australia has so to say sold its credibility to self-interest and other issues rather than to conduct itself as to what the Framers of the constitution intended:
.

9-8-2011 Page 10 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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
.

10

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE

15

. The issue of citizenship is also a clear example of this. There is constitutionally no provision for the High Court of Australia to amend the constitution and neither for a Royal Commission to do so but in my view the High Court of Australia, while judges were under oath sitting at the bench to the British monarch then trumped up their utter nonsense about the Queen of Australia and the independence of the Commonwealth of Australia rather than to accept;
.

20

25

Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: . I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic, and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in view the formation of true responsible government. END QUOTE
. Hansard 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

30

35

40

. HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE HANSARD 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

45

50

55

The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear THAT THE CONSTITUTION DIDNT ALLOW ANY SUCH THING AS TO CREATE A REPUBLIC. As such, if judges of the High Court of Australia cannot understand/comprehend this then they shouldnt be sitting at the bench to deal with constitutional issues but first undergo an appropriate training to become competent judges in constitutional matters.
.

60

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from 9-8-2011 Page 11 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. END QUOTE
.

10

15

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution. END QUOTE
.

20

Hence, any purported COAG (Council of Australian Government) decisions such as regarding anti terrorist laws neither can be held applicable to undermine the constitutional rights enshrined in the Constitution. While the 1988 Royal Commission assumed that the Commonwealth could legislate as to Australian citizenship the truth is that the Framers of the Constitution stated;
.

25

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament. Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not? Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the Constitution. 9-8-2011 Page 12 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause. Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. END QUOTE . HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

. Again:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on. END QUOTE

45

50

55

. It would take reams to include all relevant quotations and I am not proposing to do so but safe to say that I view we need to address how the High Court of Australia is inappropriately interfering with the rights of the Government to exercise certain matters. Then again, I also have ample to say about the DE FACTO Government as that too is of serious concerns but for the moment addressing the refugee issue I view that without an amendment of the constitution the Commonwealth is entitled to deport any alien as it pleases and this is not a judicial issue to deal with as such, except of certain issues, but a political issue. .
9-8-2011 Page 13 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Is there a serious question as to the refugees to be deported? . Upon basis of the sovereign right of a sovereign power to expel any alien there can be no serious issue as such. 5 Is the Minister of Immigration the Legal guardian of unaccompanied minors? . While legislation may be in place that the MINISTER may be deemed the Legal Guardian for purpose of unaccompanied minors this can however not interfere with the sovereign powers of any State to deport or otherwise prevent any alien to enter the jurisdiction of the sovereign. As such the Ministers Legal Guardianship will be subject to the sovereigns right to refuse any alien to enter the jurisdiction and the Minister cannot exercise a greater power than that which the constitution permits. . Is the swap at the expense of others? . In the above I have set out that by the Ah Toy Privy Council decision the sovereign state has every right to refuse entre to any alien and as such the fact that the Commonwealth does so by way of a certain scheme with some other nation that the Government for political motives may deem appropriate in the circumstances cannot be interfered with. For sure personally I may not appreciate this conduct but then again neither do I support any people smuggling and we must never overlook the disaster of Siev X in 2001
.

10

15

20

25

30

. In regard of the Siev X the question remains as to the involvement of the Australian Federal Police paying people in Indonesia to tamper with boats to prevent people to travel to the Commonwealth of Australia. That to me is an issue that should have been investigated by a Royal Commission!
.

Again: QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.

35

END QUOTE
.

Now lets replace the wording blue-eyed baby with say refugee and see how it then reads;
.

40

And if we alter this to the word refugee then we would get: .


9-8-2011 Page 14 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every refugee killed if it wanted to.

. Seems to me the Australian Federal Police may have simply applied this kind of reasoning to be endorsed by the High Court of Australia?
.

I for one personally oppose any killings and certainly where the Board of Inquiries regarding the titanic made it very clear that one must never leave anyone at sea leave to its perils of the sea.
.

10

15

International Law may not override constitutional provisions but neither can be deemed to be able to be disregarded where it doesnt interfere with the proper exercise of constitutional powers. The drowning of so many, and not to forget involving also 146 children, never should be tolerated and should have been the issue of a Royal Commission. . Are we breaching basic obligations of Human Rights? . 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. 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 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

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

. What should be understood, and again the Privy Council decision in Ah Toy is to be considered that the word citizen cannot be applied to an alien who seeks or does enter the jurisdiction of a sovereign state without the sovereign states permission. Therefore rights that are bestowed upon citizens may not likewise apply to a refugee unless so permitted by the legislature (Parliament) and/or the Government of the Day. Judges of the High Court of Australia may have a person view otherwise but they are not there to express their own contemporary personal views but to express along what the Framers of the Constitution intended. If we had more competent judges adjudicating in the High Court of Australia then I view we would be provided with far better quality judgements, without any kind of political interference either way.
9-8-2011 Page 15 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

As I referred to above we need better educated judges to adjudicate in constitutional matters and we might then also finally embark upon an judiciary which is competent enough to understand and comprehend that it is not the United Nations that is relevant but rather the European Union Human Rights provisions that can be relevant for so far it is complimentary to and not in conflict with the constitution. At my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati I have published even a chart setting out how the European Union Human Rights provisions can be applied. In my view lawyers arguing for or on behalf of refugees about United Nations Declaration simply need to learn what the constitution is about as I view they are doing a disservice to their clients and to that degree incompetent to provide them with proper representation. . For those who do not understand or can comprehend how the European Union Human Rights provisions apply or can apply then they better hand in their law degrees, if they have any, because if one doesnt even understand/comprehend basic Australian legal provisions then monies obtained from clients I view was obtained by deception to pretend to be competent when not. After all the Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor decision made it abundant clear that as the British Parliament (so the government) was a signatory to the European Union constitution then it is bound by all European Union decisions albeit other than its constitutional enactment that existed already. Basically as like the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any state law in conflict with commonwealth law would be the loser for so far the Commonwealth legislated within its legislative powers, and not beyond, but that Colonial laws that existed at the time of Federation as long as they were not altered and/or repealed. The colonial acts were deemed sovereign acts whereas State enactments since federation and any amended colonial acts since federation became constitutional enactments and then by way of section 106 of the constitution became subject to this constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is. Therefore, any British legislation since joining the European Union is subjective to whatever the European Union may provide for and if the British Parliament amended any constitutional act then that too could be subjected to the provisions of the European Union provisions. Because no amendment was ever enacted in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) by the British Parliament then the constitution therefore remains as amended by successful referendums and not otherwise., as such the European Union Human rights provisions remain only to be complimentary to any constitutional provision but cannot override the constitution. As the Framers of the Constitution also made it clear the Colonial sovereign Parliaments became State constitutional Parliaments and by this no longer to amend their own constitutions but could do so only if the State electors by referendum approved the amendment proposed. Hence, while Queensland purported to revert back to its colonial constitution only to replace it with a 2001 constitution act the reality is that this was utter and sheer legal nonsense because the colonial constitution was a sovereign constitution whereas since federation every state created within s106 from the colonies became a constitutional Parliament. . Let is be clear about it most people that arrive by boat are not arriving from a warn torn country they originally resided in but imply are those who didnt like the living conditions of the country
9-8-2011 Page 16 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

they ended up in, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. Well that is tough luck because ample of Australians dont like either the conditions they are ending up in even so living in the Commonwealth of Australia. Lets have a clear example: Now my wife Olga was at the time married to Jaroslav Hlavka MIE Aust CP ENG who was in an age care facility JEDASA (Now no longer existing) and for example on a visit I would report that there was urine all over the floor. Well the next day it still was all over the floor and Olga would go there and not only clean up with a mop and bucket and not only clean up the urine but also clean the entire floor area and change the bedding (at 68 years old) and staff would make known that they were aware of the bell used by Jaroslav but that they simply would ignore it. Well, I discovered he had a wound (from lying on his side) all the way to his bone and his airbed that was special hired was flat. The nursing home staff made clear it was of no concern to them that he was lying there as such and not even having a blanket or sheet over him to cover his body. So, I went out to the company that hired out the airbed and the new plug normally costing $1.00 was provided free of charge. Well, as the person made clear the nursing could have made them aware of the airbed being flat and it could have been done by them without charge. Jaroslav during his working life paid a lot of taxes and yet when it came to his needing to be cared for the federal government simply failed to ensure that appropriate care was provided. Ministers will always blame nursing home providers but that is a lame duck excuse because the very reason the Minister is appointed it to be a responsible Minister. Where are the appropriate young invalid care facilities one may also ask? What kind of Government are we having if this is unable to deal appropriately with its existing responsibilities. As Delegate Howe during the Constitution Convention debates expressed the general community should be caring for those needing assistance yet we seem to have a Government of the Day more concerned to its own political survival then to ensure that young invalids have a proper and suitable place to call home, rather than being dumped in age care facilities to watch people dying around them. Where is the Commonwealth constitutional powers I may well ask to fund the e3duicationb of those people it deport to Malaysia because as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too well aware it aint part of the constitutional powers because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear external affairs only relates to existing powers the commonwealth has within section 51 and 52 and fund9iong aliens in other countries is not part of this. Come to think of it, the Commonwealth can only use funding for what it is constitutionally permitted and this is to maintain department, etc, and not to waste millions of dollars to promote a CARBON TAX that is beyond its constitutional powers as it is not intended as such to be a tax and would in any event interfere with the States retained legislative powers as to environment. Yes, we need more competent constitutional judges and certainly need to inject some brains Ministers so they understand and comprehend that they are responsible Ministers and not resort to a blame game to blame anyone but themselves.
.

45

Hansard 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What is the way to do it I am not now considering. But I hope I am not misunderstood in calling attention to that difficulty as likely to arise. I believe myself that the system which we call responsible government is the best that has yet been invented in the history of the world for carrying on the good government of the people, and I hope that it will be instituted in the Federal Government of Australia. END QUOTE Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: . I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic, and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in view the formation of true responsible government. 9-8-2011 Page 17 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

50

55

END QUOTE
.

Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

10

Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible government in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words. We must have some regard to the instrument we are framing, and we ought to look upon it as a Constitution with plenty of elasticity, under which all the constitutional usages will apply and be interpreted. If the Commandant was a kind of Jack-in-office, and wanted to run his army where he ought not to, you could dismiss him. If the Governor-General interfered unduly you would have to say respectfully-"You must not interfere in these matters; if you do, we shall repeal the Act, and there will be no army; you will be Commander-inChief merely nominally." I hope the words will not be inserted. END QUOTE
.

15

20

HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS: There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the liberties of our people-then, END QUOTE
.

25

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government END QUOTE
.

30

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee. END QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee. END QUOTE
.

35

40

45

HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister. END QUOTE HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!

50

55

END QUOTE
.

60

What we can conclude from the above is there is a responsible Minister and not that everyone else is responsible but the minister. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear someone had to be responsible to the parliament and that is the Minister otherwise they could create the American Republican system
9-8-2011 Page 18 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

When we therefore have people suffering in age care facilities then it is the responsible Minister who should be held accountable and gotten rid of. To have a person remaining to be a minister despite the total incompetence can be no excuse and by this all other Ministers themselves are placing their integrity in question, including the Prime minister.
.

10

15

20

The unconstitutional armed invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan are examples how we have a DE FACTO Government gone mad! Why was there no Royal commission in regard of these unconstitutional invasions? . Lets make it very clear that Cabinet (meaning the Ministers) can decide to go to war but this has no meaning unless the Minister of Defence recommend this to the Governor-General and the Governor-General and the Governor-General alone is to decide if considering the interest and wellbeing of the general community a Declaration of War should be published in the gazette and unless and until a Declaration of War is published in the Gazette no war can be authorised and any action would be unconstitutional. Now the grossly incompetent High Court of Australia in this regard also failed to understand and comprehend this when I placed my cases before it with a s75(v) to seek to prevent any invasion into Iraq (on 19 February 2003 and 19 March 2003, etc). The Minister of Defence therefore will be the responsible Minister having allowed Australian troops to invade Iraq as I view it by an act of treason because no Declaration of War was published in the Gazette. What we need is the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hbyphens!), a constitutional council, to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to the true meaning and application of the constitution.
.

25

30

And one may also ask what on earth is Jenny Macklin Minister for Aboriginal affairs doing as if she is the responsible Minister presiding over an about $10 million dollars every day being wasted regarding Aboriginal issues then responsible Government is out of the door. It appeared from a 8-8-2011 media report that she made known that the people were entitled to a report, yet it was only because of a FOI request by Channel 7 News (6 pm 7-8-2011 report) she had opposed that it was ordered to be released. Now, if we are going to have a minister giving this kind of BULL then get rid of her because obviously she was protracting the time to release the document, and try to conceal it, as to prevent her to be held responsible for what I consider to be her gross incompetence.
.

35

40

Aboriginals should be treated equally as other Australians and not monies thrown at them while one has to remember you as Deputy Prime Minister held it was essential no pensioner would get an increase unless the long drawn out investigation was held to assess the need for any increase. Well at that very same time about $10 million a day or about $3.5 Billion a year was being wasted on Aboriginal schemes.
.

Again the Channel 7 News report was at 6 pm on 7 August 2011 and if you noticed my correspondence to you was forwarded earlier that day via email at 2.31am about Aboriginals and the waste monies, etc. QUOTE 45
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au> To: "R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au" <R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au> Cc: "inspector-rikati@yahoo.com.au" <inspector-rikati@yahoo.com.au> Sent: Sunday, 7 August 2011 2:31 AM Subject: See attachment 110807-Submission re proposed amendment of preamble regarding Aboriginals

50

END QUOTE
.

What we need is to return to the origins of the constitution and that we finally hold ministers responsible and not leave incompetent Ministers in positions or move them to other positions as
9-8-2011 Page 19 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

to do so means that the entire Government is not concerned about what is appropriate for the people but rather are self-interested to preserve their own political positions. . Edmund Barton was commissioned on 26 December 1900 to form government even so at that time the Commonwealth of Australia didnt exist and so neither any Parliament and yet he was commissioned by the Governor-General because one doesnt need to have the majority in the Parliament because governing is about the execution of the existing legislation and so within its parameters. It is only when a government desires to gain more powers it may need to have an alliance with other political opponents. Any Prime Minister who for the sake of staying in power is willing to act politically rather than to act for the best interest and wellbeing of the general community is beyond question a traitor. Any Minister while entitled to take into consideration his/her political views in the end must advise the Governor-General and act also to what is in the best interest of the general community, therefore may have to act contrary to his/her political views. Any conduct otherwise would mean the Government of the Day is a political motivated government not at all acting for and on behalf of all Australians but only acting in the selfinterest of its political followers.
.

20

25

What we need is a real democratic government that we no longer have this appalling waste of monies, that elderly no longer are left to suffer and Aboriginals are treated equally like other Australians and monies are not wasted on them but appropriately used for all Australians. You can forget about seeking to have the constitution amended to give a government unrestricted powers without checking by the Parliament because it is proven beyond doubt that since federation more than 110 years ago all this is about wanting more power when the Government of the Day still is totally incompetent to deal with responsibilities it has. So much more to state but that is for my next writing about the VELVET REVOLUTION!

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

9-8-2011 Page 20 VELVET REVOLUTION 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 See Also documents at my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati