20230729-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Department of Infrastructure-SUBMISSION Re MISINFORMATION BILL, Etc-Supplement-1

Page 1
1
2
3 Information Integrity Committee (Australian/Victoria date) 29-7-2023
4 information.integrity@infrastructure.gov.au
5 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
6
7 RE: 20230729-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Department of Infrastructure-SUBMISSION
8 Re MISINFORMATION BILL, etc-Supplement-1
9
10 Sir/Madam,
11 while the Commonwealth may have at times genuine concerns about
12 misinformation/disinformation reality is that we call so called ‘FactChecker” who really often do
13 no more but seeks to twist the truth to suit whatever orginasation that is paying them.
14 In my view ACMA should pursue appropriate action against ‘FactCheckers’ which are in my
15 view publishing misleading/deceptive statements far too often not at all based upon FACTS but
16 merely upon alleged unnamed ‘experts” which may be more like those experts claiming that Iraq
17 had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to pretend to justify the mass murder of Iraqi’s.
18
19 https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/07/28/pauline-hanson-misleads-voice-claims-black-state/
20 Pauline Hanson misleads with Voice claims about a new 'Black state'
21 1 day ago ... One Nation's Pauline Hanson is wrong when she says the Voice to
22 Parliament will give the government the power to create a new 'Black state'.
23
24 QUOTE Pauline Hanson misleads with Voice claims about a new ‘Black state’
25 Analysis / Indigenous Affairs
26 Pauline Hanson misleads with Voice claims about a new ‘Black state’
27 The One Nation senator is wrong in her assertions — the Parliament already has the
28 constitutional powers to create new states.
29 WILLIAM SUMMERS, AAP FACTCHECK
30 JUL 28, 2023
31
32 ONE NATION LEADER SENATOR PAULINE HANSON (IMAGE: AAP/MICK TSIKAS)
33 What was claimed
34 The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would give the federal government the power to form
35 new states.
36 Our verdict
37 Misleading. The Australian constitution already gives Parliament the power to create new
38 states. The Voice would not change those powers.
29-7-2023 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 One Nation Leader Senator Pauline Hanson claims that if voters approve an Indigenous
2 Voice to Parliament, the federal government will have the power to establish new states
3 including a potential “Black state” carved out of the Northern Territory.
4 This is misleading. Chapter VI of the Australian constitution already gives the federal
5 Parliament the power to create new states.
6 The proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which will be voted on at a referendum this
7 year, would not give the Parliament or the federal government any new powers to change
8 state and territory borders.
9 Hanson has made the claim at least twice. At an anti-Voice meeting in Adelaide on June
10 23, she said amending the constitution to establish an Indigenous Voice would give
11 “permission to the government to go and make whatever legislation they want to. And part
12 of that legislation, what they could do, is actually form another state in Australia.” (Video
13 mark 8 min 56 sec.)
14 She repeated the claim during a video interview published on Facebook (screenshot here)
15 on July 10, saying: “Once you enshrine it [the Voice] in the constitution, that’s where they
16 can make the legislation, the laws around that, because you’ve given them the authority …
17 You don’t know what they’re gonna do. So they, as I’ve said, they can separate the
18 Northern Territory, make it into an Aboriginal Black state … And if you challenge that,
19 that can be taken to the High Court.” (Video mark 44 min 52 sec.)
20 When contacted for clarification of the claim, a spokesman for Hanson told AAP
21 FactCheck that if a Voice was established it “could make representations demanding
22 Indigenous-exclusive seats in Parliament or the creation of an Indigenous sovereign state,
23 and this could certainly create an obligation on Parliament to consider these proposals”.
24 “Anthony Albanese has said it would be a very brave government that ignored advice from
25 [the] Voice,” the spokesman added.
26 If the Voice referendum is successful, the proposed Indigenous body will be recognised in
27 the constitution via a new section 129, which grants Parliament the power to make laws
28 “with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice,
29 including its the composition, functions, powers and procedures”.
30 But constitutional law academic Professor emerita Anne Twomey told AAP
31 FactCheck that section 129 will grant Parliament the power to make laws only about
32 matters relating to the operation of Voice, “not the making of new states”.
33 “It does not give permission to the government (or more accurately, the Parliament) to
34 make ‘whatever legislation they want’,” Twomey said in an email. “Section 121 of the
35 constitution already provides that Parliament may establish new states, and the proposed
36 referendum does not alter it.”
37 The wording of section 121 — which says Parliament “may admit to the Commonwealth
38 or establish new states” — has not changed since the constitution was given royal assent in
39 1900.
40 Twomey said the proposed new section of the constitution, section 129, would also include
41 a qualifier that says Parliament’s power to legislate in relation to the Voice is ‘subject to
42 this constitution’.
43
44 Pauline Hanson is using the Voice to Parliament to become relevant again
45 Read More

Page 3
1 “This means that it is subject to the existing powers within chapter VI of the constitution
2 concerning the making of new states,” she said. “The last time statehood was proposed for
3 the Northern Territory, a referendum was held in the Northern Territory to ask the people
4 whether they wanted statehood. They rejected it.”
5 Professor Adrienne Stone, a constitutional law expert at the University of Melbourne, also
6 told AAP FactCheck that Hanson’s claim was wrong: “There is a section in the
7 constitution that governs the creation of new states (section 121). The creation of the Voice
8 would not change these powers.”
9 As explained here, an Indigenous Voice to Parliament would make representations to the
10 Parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres
11 Strait Islander peoples but would not have any veto powers. AAP FactCheck has
12 previously addressed a similar claim here.
13 The verdict
14 The claim that the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would allow the government to form a
15 new “Black state” in the Northern Territory is misleading.
16 Experts tell AAP FactCheck that the Australian constitution already gives the federal
17 Parliament the power to create new states. The proposed Voice to Parliament would not
18 affect those powers in any way.
19 Misleading. The claim is accurate in parts but information has also been presented
20 incorrectly, out of context or omitted.
21 AAP FactCheck is an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network. To
22 keep up with our latest fact checks, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
23 ABOUT THE AUTHOR
24
25 William Summers
26 CONTRIBUTOR
27 William Summers is a journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. His specialist areas of
28 expertise are Freedom of Information (FOI) and MPs’ allowances. In 2017 he was a
29 Walkley Award finalist.
30 This article is reprinted from AAP FactCheck
31 TOPICS
32 AAP FACTCHECK
33 AUSPOL
34 AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
35 INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT
36 PAULINE HANSON
37 POLITICS
38 VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM
39 END QUOTE Pauline Hanson misleads with Voice claims about a new ‘Black state’
40
41 https://www.facebook.com/AAPFactCheck 17:12 29-7-2023
42 OK would you trust me to work on your airplane, not being a mechanic, and then use it not
43 knowing if it is going to drop out of the air? Well, William Summers is a journalist and
44 seems to me not to be a constitutionalist and he in my view totally misrepresents what
45 Senator Pauline Hanson is about! The issue is not if you like Senator Pauline Hanson or
46 not but that if you are going to criticize her then at least do it in a proper researched
47 manner. I later today intent to publish a document upon my blog
48 https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati setting out why in my view William Summers
49 misrepresents what Senator Pauline Hanson is about! At I keep telling people LEARN
50 THE CONSTITUTION before mouthing off to seek to discredit a person about something
51 you may not understand!

Page 4
1 And
2 Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka 17:22 29-7-2023
3 I migrated to Australia in 1971 and the first thing I heard about Aboriginals when in the
4 Grampians, Victoria being informed that there was a battle by certain aboriginals to
5 rename old Aboriginal names because they were long death, etc. With wimps of politicians
6 any pressure to cave in to rename whatever it is more than likely that as Thomas mayo
7 made clear if they do not listen then they will be punished. I understand they will seek to
8 vote them out. Fact checkers have gained a reputation not to actually check the facts but
9 merely provide their "opinion" which often proved to be incorrect but nevertheless they are
10 more concerned, at least in my view, to follow what the paymaster dictates then to stick to
11 the truth!
12 And
14 Don't trouble the waters but be realistic. The Voice is no more but a constitutional
15 provision and the Parliament can use and misuse this as it desires and often depending
16 upon the cowards in the Parliament. what to legislate for. As such, Parliament may use this
17 constitutional alteration to legislate for whatever. Any competent constitutionalist, well try
18 to find them is another matter, would be well aware that the 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum
19 was a con-job! My blog sets this out in considerable details.
20 And
22 As I published on my blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati in recent days a German
23 Court found that this alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus did not exist. I challenge FactCheckers to
24 prove me wrong! Now surely this should be easy to do but not about unnamed "experts"
25 you claim to rely upon! Where is the evidence that vaccines saved 19.8m lives worldwide?
26 FactCheckers should keep in mind that where they themselves are making false/misleading
27 statement then readers may be denied to make an "informed decision", and may as result
28 end up crippled if not death due to adverse reactions! Competent FactCheckers do not
29 merely give an "opinion" while criticizing another person but claiming it to be checking
30 FACTS, let it prove me to be wrong!
31
32 Check out:
33 This part E DOMICIDE 2.0 questions also Peter Doherty Institute conduct and
34 “Travelling Pete” Anthony Albanese meeting with Bill Gates to perhaps implement
35 the next pandemic scam?
36 You can download the document from:
37 https://www.scribd.com/document/661422686/20230727-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-
38 B-to-R-Kershaw-Chief-Commissioner-of-AFP-Suppl-101E-DeMOCIDE-2-0
39
40 Commencing on page 23 to and including page 29 Peter Doherty Instiutute FOI Act
41 documentation is included!
42 https://cairnsnews.org › 2023 › 04 › 29 › maha-has-concrete-proof-for-court-evidence-
43 sarscov2-does-not-exist
44 MAHA has concrete proof for court evidence SARSCOV2 does not exist ...
45 Apr 29, 2023Marvin Haberlandhas won his case in Germany heard on the 26th April 2023.
46 This is now hard scientific and legal evidence for MAHA to raise in our up and coming
47 Australian Federal Court Class Action that the SARSCOV2 virus does not exist. Hence
48 Covid19 does not exist since it is meant to be caused by the non-
49 existent SARSCOV2 virus.
50

Page 5
1 Meaning all those FactCheckers who claimed otherwise may have to face reality that they may
2 have mislead/deceived their readers and as result readers may have made an incorrect decision
3 and ended up with adverse reaction to cripple them or even death.
4
5 Let us now turn to the ‘balcstate” issue!
6
7 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
8
9 Chapter VI—New States 54
10 121 New States may be admitted or established .....................................54
11 122 Government of territories.................................................................54
12 123 Alteration of limits of States ............................................................54
13 124 Formation of new States ..................................................................54
14
15 Chapter VI—New States
16 121 New States may be admitted or established
17 The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new
18 States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or
19 impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of
20 representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.
21 122 Government of territories
22 The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory
23 surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth,
24 or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and
25 accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the
26 Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory
27 in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms
28 which it thinks fit.
29 123 Alteration of limits of States
30 The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the
31 Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the
32 electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish,
33 or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and
34 conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent,
35 make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase
36 or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State
37 affected.
38 124 Formation of new States
39 A new State may be formed by separation of territory from a State,
40 but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new
41 State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of
42 States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States
43 affected.
44
45 It must be clear that there can be absolutely no question about it that the Parliament can create
46 new States provided it falls within the 4 above mentioned provisions, albeit we also have to
47 consider Sections 106, 107, 108 and 109!
48
49 Chapter V—The States
50 106 Saving of Constitutions
51 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
Page 6
1 to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the

2 Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
3 State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the
4 Constitution of the State.
5 107 Saving of Power of State Parliaments
6 Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or
7 becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively
8 vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from
9 the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the
10 Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the
11 State, as the case may be.
12 108 Saving of State laws
13 Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a
14 State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the
15 Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this
16 Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is
17 made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the
18 Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of
19 repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony
20 had until the Colony became a State.
21 109 Inconsistency of laws
22 When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the
23 Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the
24 extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
25
26 Do note the wording “subject to this Constitution”:
27
28 2 Governor-General
29 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
30 Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
31 may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure,
32 but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
33 Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
34
35 When one consdiders constitutional provisions then one MUST consider the entire document
36 because of the wording: “subject to this Constitution”!
37
38 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
41 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
42 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
43 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
44 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
45 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
46 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
47 are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
48 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
49 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be
50 called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
51 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
52 END QUOTE
Page 7
1 .
2 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
3 Australasian Convention)
4 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
5 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
6 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
7 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
8 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
9 embrace and unite.
10 END QUOTE
11 And
12 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
15 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
16 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
17 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
18 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
19 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
20 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
21 END QUOTE
22 And
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
26 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
27 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
28 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
29 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
30 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
31 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
32 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
33 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
34 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
35 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
36 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
37 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
38 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 The right to vote:
42
43 Part IV—Both Houses of the Parliament
44 41 Right of electors of States
45 No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for
46 the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
47 the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
48 from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
49 Commonwealth.
50
51 This means that every “adult” (meaning the Commonwealth declares from time to time what is
52 the age of being an adult) who has franchise (voting rights) in a State (Territories are a quasi
53 State) shall have AUTOMATICALLY the right to vote in federal elections!
Page 8
1
2 Yet, somehow Australians of Aboriginal descent were in the main denied to vote and given the
3 deceptive claims that they needed to become Australian Citizens, which was claimed to be a
4 nationality!
5
6 And let us not ignore Ss51(xxvi) as it was and what it became after the 1967 referendum:
7
8 (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any
9 State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
10
11 Sionce 1967 referendum:
12
13 (xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any
14 State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
15
16 Hence, Ss51(xxvi) now includes Aboriginals (this includes Torres Strait Islanders) as a “race”!
17
18 Let us look mat Section 25:
19
20 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting
21 For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all
22 persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the
23 more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in
24 reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the
25 Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not
26 be counted.
27
28 Meaning, that any State can legislate to deny Aboriginals or any other race to be denied to vote
29 in State elections and by this they lose any rights also they may have had in S41.
30
31 There is however more to this!
32
33 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
34 Australasian Convention)
35 QUOTE
36 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the
37 Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
38 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this
39 colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who
40 are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
41 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
42 aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
43 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
44 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they
45 ought not to be deducted.
46 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
47 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in
48 reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals
49 vote.
50 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
51 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this
52 matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita,
Page 9
1 if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay,
2 whilst if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
3 Clause, as read, agreed to.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 What this underlines is that the Framers of the Constitution held that Aboriginals were in fact
7 equal to other Australians and should NOT be regarded as a race to be discriminated against, but
8 for the sake to get the colonies to vote for the proposed Commonwealth of Australia
9 Constitution Bill it was held better to exclude Aboriginals from counting (Section 127) as to
10 minimize the monies the newly created States would have to pay upon federation. As such, the
11 1967 Ss51(xxvi) referendum was a con-job referendum because as will be shown below it was
12 not to give Aboriginal more rights but in fact to rob them of certain rights they already had from
13 the States and worse to be able now the Commonwealth to DISCRIMINATE against them as
14 some “inferior”, “coloured” “alien” “race”!
15
17 QUOTE
18 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
19 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
20 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation
21 with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
22 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general
23 community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth.
24 If it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning
25 of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do
26 that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it
27 means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it
28 should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if
29 any particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known
30 instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get
31 hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to
32 Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it
33 will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
34 confines of Victoria at all.
35 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
36 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put
37 them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the
38 whole community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it
39 is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from
40 passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
41 that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
42 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was
43 to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior
44 races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the
45 Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the
46 Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens,
47 which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth,
48 and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all
49 those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
50 Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration,
51 but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for

Page 10
1 them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such
2 laws.
3 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
4 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
5 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
6 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of
7 aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 How absurd to place Australian natural born Aboiriginals to be equal to any “inferior”,
11 “coloured” “alien” “race”!
12
13 What this means is that any legislation in favour of any race cannot be used against the “general
14 community”
15
17 QUOTE
18 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
19 the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
20 we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
21 Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
22 exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
23 legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
24 will have arisen.
25 END QUOTE
26
28 QUOTE
29 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
30 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
31 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
32 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
33 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
34 but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
35 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
36 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
37 meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
38 I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
39 dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we
40 introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and
41 those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision,
42 and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore,
43 it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
44 possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
45 exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
46 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
47 want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
48 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
49 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
50 Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
51 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
52 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Page 11
1 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
2 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
3 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
4 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
5 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
6 and so on.
7 END QUOTE
8
9 Again: “except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as
10 aliens, and so on.”
11
12 What the Framers of the Constitution made clear was that once the Commonwealth commenced
13 to legislate against any particular “race” then they would no longer be entitled to vote as they
14 would lose their “citizenship” this obviously to prevent this race to seek to abolish this
15 legislation. When then the Commonwealth commenced to legislate against Aboriginals that
16 effectively denied them “citizenship”! As such Ss51(xxvi) did not give them any rights but rather
17 robbed them of it when there was any legislation against them.
18
19 Do keep in mind the issue of “general community”.
20 Now consider the following: “KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
21 High Court of Australia” Re the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
22 The merefact that the purported “Racial Discrimination Act 1975” is directed against the
23 “general community” means it never was a valid legislation in the first place.
24
25 Moreover, Ss51(xxvi) was inserted in the constitution to “DISCRIMINATE” against a race, and
26 as such, the 1967 con-job ss51(xxvi) could only mean that now the Commonwealth could
27 “DISCRIMINATE” against Aboriginals and not otherwise. However, any such legislation must
28 be against ALL people of that raqce and not just some of them. Meaning that any legislation
29 dealing with some group of Aboriginals but not others is unconstitutional! After all, the 1967
30 Ss51(xxvi) referendum was not at all as to amend the meaning of this section regarding all other
31 races and one mcannot have a Section having oopposite meanings depending which race is
32 referred to.
33
34 Ok, now the U.N. having been behind the 1967 con-job referendum appears to me, thanks also to
35 a great part due to Australian lawyer Josephine Cashman publications (see her substack) to
36 pursue more harm to Aboriginals, by effectively using them to get Australian land in their hands.
37
38 In my view the real solution would have been to hold a referendum to abolish both S25 and
39 Ss51(xxvi).
40 That however I understand will not please Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid the architects of
41 Voice, as I understand “Travelling Pete” Anthony Albanese claimed them to be.
42 In regard of the various videos I watched regarding Thomas Mayo I understand he desires to
43 create a “BLACK STATE” and well the legal principle embedded in the Constitution entitles
44 him the right to express his political views, it is however what I consider the deceptive conduct
45 by Travelling Pete” Anthony Albanese and collaborators to have claimed they accepted the
46 ‘Uluru statement of the heart’ as such, and now seems to be backpeddling and changing to only
47 accept certain parts. Reality is that considered what I have set out above the Commonwealth can
48 create States but must do so not to offend legal principles embedded in the constitution and so
49 also the right of citizens to freely move about, and not haqve for example access to a beach
50 denied because of claimed landrights. Does anyone really believe that the water at the beach or
51 even the sand was there tens of thousands of years ago. If so put the person in a mental asylum!
Page 12
1 The Commonwealth cannot create any any new State that denies citizens to enter as per legal
2 principles embedded in the constitution and so Voice is to try to get around this where then the
3 Parliament can claim it is no more doing what the Voice provides for and the hell with whatever
4 the legal principloes were before the inclusion of Voice.
5
6 As I referred to “KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of
7 Australia” Re the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), it ought to be clear that the
8 judges of the High Court of Australia cannot be trusted b ecause they simply are screwing
9 Australians and ignore constitutional constrains. Clear examples are Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary,
10 MABO, etc.
11 Let us therefore consider MABO where the High Court of Australia in my view deceptively
12 made claims to conceal that more than a hundred years before Captain Cook claimed New
13 Holland for the British it already in 1658 had been claimed by the Dutch and the British never to
14 my knowledge actually extinguised Dutch ownership, which I understand did not provide for
15 Aboriginal land rights. I understand that Capt Cook in violation of the monarch
16 directions/instructions claimed New Holland well knowing it was already Dutch claimed land. In
17 my view techcally Dutch laws remained applicable as the British never ousted it.
18
19 I understand that the Court referred to “TERRA NULLIUS” (no once land) but then blatantly
20 disregarded the existing rule of land created by the Dutch, this even so it is not having any
21 jurisdiction to act beyond what the constitution provides for.
22
23 http://www.vochistory.org.au/voyages.html
24 Voyages - VOC Historical Society
25 1606, Captain Willem Janszoon in the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC) ship Duyfken landed ... He called the
26 western part of the new continent "New Holland".
27
28 Actually, the whole part of the land mass now known as Australia became known as New
29 Holland!
30
31 https://www.vochistory.org.au/vergulde.html
32 QUOTE
33 On the night of the 28th of April 1656 the VOC ship Vergulde Draeck (also known as Gilt Dragon)
34 under the command of Pieter Albertszoon ran onto a reef off the coast of Western Australia about
35 mid-way between what are now the towns of Seabird and Ledge Point. The site is about 100 kms
36 north of Perth.
37
38 The ship had a complement of 193 crew and passengers on board. Only 75 of them made it on to the shore of
39 the mainland.
40 A crew of 7 sailed to Batavia (now Jakarta in Indonesia) in a small sailing boat to report the wreck and to get
41 help for the survivors. The journey took 6 weeks. Including the Captain, 68 survivors stayed behind to survive
42 as best they could in pre-colonial Western Australia. . . . . . .
43
44 On 4 October 1655 the VOC (Dutch East Indies Company) ship Vergulde Draeck of the Amsterdam Chamber
45 sailed from Texel in the Netherlands on her second voyage bound for the East Indies (now Indonesia). She
46 was carrying, apart from passengers and crew, cargo, trade goods and silver coins worth 185,000 guilders.
47 She reached the Cape of Good Hope on 9 March 1656 and four days later set sail for Batavia. She never
48 reached her destination. . . . . . . Having adopted the Brouwer route, ie. followed the Roaring Forties east from
49 the Cape, but obviously miscalculating his easting and possibly the latitude, Captain Pieter Albertszoon drove
50 her onto a reef off the western coast of the Southland between the present day towns of Seabird and Ledge
51 Point in Western Australia on 28 April 1656.
52
53 On striking the reef the Vergulde Draeck burst open and only a few provisions were saved. When the 75
54 survivors had gathered ashore Albertszoon decided to send a party of sailors to Batavia, in the one schuyt
55 (small boat) which had been saved from the wreck, to report the tragedy and ask for a rescue vessel to be
56 sent. Albertszoon decided to stay with the survivors and to appoint his under steersman (second officer)
57 Abraham Leeman to lead the party of 7. He was probably influenced in his decision by the events following the
58 wrecking of the Batavia on the Abrolhos Islands some 27 years earlier. On that occasion senior officers
Page 13
1 abandoned the survivors to sail to Batavia, leaving many survivors to be killed by mutineers. (See Batavia's
2 Graveyard)
3 The experiences of the rescue ships with inclement weather along the coast of the Southland, convinced
4 Governor-General Maetsuijker (see picture right) in Batavia, that June and July were not the best months for
5 rescue missions. Still concerned about the fate of the survivors, the next expedition was mounted during the
6 summer.
7
8 On New Year's Day 1658 the fluit Waeckende Boei and the galjoort Emmeloort, under the command of
9 Captains Samuel Volkersen and Aucke Pieters Jonck respectively, left Batavia in search of survivors of
10 the Vergulde Draeck and the lost 11 crew from the Goede Hoop. They were instructed to rescue survivors and
11 to salvage as much merchandise - especially coins - as possible and to chart the coast carefully. Furthermore,
12 they were to find out if the land was inhabited and, if so, to try and establish trade with the inhabitants.
13 They were also instructed to take formal possession of all the places they discovered.
14 Volkerson and Jonck were unequal to the task. Not long into the voyage Volkerson complained that
15 the Emmeloort was too slow and he was having difficulty keeping the vessels together. On February 14 they
16 separated and acted independently although they met up on several occasions on the coast of the Southland.
17
18 The Emmeloort sighted the Southland on 24 February 1658 at 33° 12' S - at about Bunbury - and then sailed
19 north charting the coast. On March 8 at about 30° 25' S fires were seen on the shore. Next day a boat was
20 sent ashore late in the day to discover that the fires had been extinguished. Next day another search party
21 was dispatched and they met up with a group of aborigines who had been responsible for the fires. The party
22 also reported seeing crops of grain growing and land under cultivation. However, no traces of survivors
23 and wreckage of ships was found. The Emmeloort slowly sailed north and reached Batavia on 18 March 1658.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 French logbook also recorded that they saw copper coloured natives with blond hair, cultivated
27 land and Dutch type of buildings. It therefore is clear that by 1656 Dutch law became part of
28 New Holland (later renamed Australia/ New South Wales).
29
30 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigendom (OWNERSHIP)
31 QUOTE
32 Legal[edit | edit source text]
33 Antiquity, Middle Ages and Enlightenment[edit | edit source text]
34 The ways in which possession, ownership and transfer of ownership are regulated have taken many
35 different forms since ancient times. The code of the Babylonian king Hammurabi from around 1750 BC.
36 Chr. has a rule for acquisition of ownership by statute of limitations. An example from Roman law is
37 the mancipatio. There was no private property with Germanic tribes, everything belonged to the tribe so if
38 someone died it was not necessary to divide the inheritance.
39 In England, the Magna Carta was established in 1215 where the administration of justice and property were
40 enshrined as the two most important fundamental rights. In the early Middle Ages, the Netherlands, like
41 the whole of Europe north of the Alps, had a widespread system of common use by small farmers of
42 the property of a large landowner such as the church, king, duke or count. In this way, the
43 inhabitants of a larger village or city could be provided with food, clothing and footwear. Concepts
44 such as the brink and the meent date from that time. The ideas of the great writers of the
45 Enlightenment led to a general scepticism towards common ownership. In the Netherlands, this
46 meant that common property is not included in the Civil Code. [1]
47 For a long time, large groups of people were excluded in several cultures when it came to the right to
48 property, such as women, foreigners and serfs. In the Netherlands, married women could not acquire
49 property independently until 1957, in Belgium until 1958.
50 Napoleonic law[edit | edit source text]
51 La propriété est le droit de jouir et disposer des choses de la manière la plus absolue,
52 pourvu qu'on n'en fasse pas un usage prohibé par les lois ou par les règlements.
53 (Property is the right to enjoy and dispose of a property in the most absolute manner,
54 provided that it is not used contrary to the laws or regulations.)
55 Article 544 French Civil Code (Art. 544 Belgian Old Civil Code (1804), Art. 625 Dutch
56 Civil Code (1838)).
57 END QUOTE
58
59 There are several important issues:
Page 14
1  The Captain Pieter Albertszoon with others amounted to 75 of the 193 persons who made
2 it to land. As the Captain is the law, then his arrival on land means that he took Dutch
3 law onto what was New Holland (Australia).
4  Also “They were also instructed to take formal possession of all the places they discovered. ”.
5  Also: “The party also reported seeing crops of grain growing and land under cultivation.”
6  Within Dutch law at the time, property belong to the community, the state
7
8 Whereas the British sailors were not authorised by their Monarch to take land that was already
9 inhabited the Dutch simply instructed to take possession. This means that the British technically
10 never ousted Dutch law and so the Dutch way of how property was defined.
11
12 The High Court of Australia in its MABO judgment clearly did not refer to Dutch law existing
13 but there can be no doubt that it did exist. The instructions the Dutch Captains did get was to
14 trade with natives and claim formal possession of the land.
15
16 How much of part of New Holland was claimed by the Dutch Captains is not to be questioned as
17 much as Captain Cook landing in what is now N.S.W claimed New Holland for England (in
18 violation of the Monarch instructions) without having explored then the entire New Holland,
19 then it cannot be argued that the Dutch may not have explored the entire New Holland.
20
21 If therefore the High Court of Australia determined that there was ‘native tile” rights then those
22 should have been determined by the Dutch law as was then existing as from 1656! This doesn’t
23 mean that I seek to imply that the MABO decision was correct regarding mainland New Holland
24 (now referred to as Commonwealth of Australia/Australia! After all cultivating land and growing
25 grain and having Dutch types of buildings as well as copper coloured skin natives with blond
26 hair indicates that the Dutch Captain and the 68 sailors did live on after shipwrecked. One may
27 ask what really was the efforts made to try to locate the Captain and other crew!
28
29 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was drafted upon that there was
30 no land rights applicable. Had the Framers of the Constitution held that land rights were
31 applicable it could have provided for this in the constitution.
32
33 https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=61502
34 QUOTE H. L. D’EMDEN v F. PEDDER – High Court of Australia
35 The Commonwealth and the States are, with respect to the matters which under the
36 Constitution are within the ambit of their respective legislative or executive authority,
37 sovereign States, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and
38 the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or implied. Where, therefore, the
39 Constitution makes a grant of legislative or executive power to the Commonwealth, the
40 Commonwealth is entitled to exercise that power in absolute freedom, and without any
41 interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
46 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
47 allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
48 END QUOTE
49
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
53 but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
Page 15
1 END QUOTE
2
4 QUOTE
5 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 What now appears to me to be the issue is that Voice isn’t really going to change for one of iota
9 the issues of:
10 Health
11 Education
12 Jobs
13 Housing
14 as current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs claim it will because why on earth is the the Minister
15 for Aboriginal Affairs and not fixing the problems now already?
16
17 This whole Voice exercise is no more but to deceive Australian electors as to be able to use this
18 (registered organisation) Voice fore ulterior purpoeses so as to create states wto be deemed
19 ‘Apartheid States’ where only Aboriginals can enter and reside. That I understand is the aim by
20 Thomas Mayo. A BLACK STATE that is governed by Aboriginals exclusively.
21
22 Why on earth did some 3 former High Court of Australia judges refer to “sovereignity” issue
23 when constitutionally every Australia has sovereign rights? Is it because the hidden agenda is to
24 create a sovereign entity within the Commonwealth of Australia? After all I view the High Court
25 of Australia betrayes Australians big time in Sue v Hill and so may do so again regardless that it
26 may constitute TREASON!
27
28 I already had the impression that the real hidden purpose using the registered Voice registered
29 corporation is to create a BLACK STATE and Senator Pauline Hanson appears to have
30 understood the same.
31 The Voice committee need to do no more but to advise the Federal Government it desire to have
32 A ‘BLACK STATE’ created and the Federal Government then will put before the Parliament
33 some Bill to provide for this by circumventing any constitutional restrictions perhaps claiming
34 that the Voice referendum cleared the path for this. After all, it appears to me that even the
35 Attorney-General lacks a proper understanding of what the constitution stands for and so more
36 than likely most Members of Parliament will likely neither have a proper understanding of the
37 true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
38
39 Currently the reported $34 to $39 billion a year being spent on Aboriginal issues I view is
40 unconstitutional as Ss51(xxvi) doesn’t provide for this and otherwise Aboriginals are to be equal
41 in;
42 Health
43 Education
44 Jobs
45 Housing
46 as any other Australian.
47
48 The nonsense that Voice is not a “race’ issue cannot be maintained this as Ss51(xxvi) clearly
49 provides for Aboriginals to be a “race” and you cannot have contradictory meanings in the one
50 constitution! In my view Senator Pauline Hanson is right on ther ball about this BLACK

Page 16
1 STATE issue and I view ACMA should deal with this FactCheckers misleading/deceptive
2 conduct so often published!
3 Again:
4 What was claimed
5 The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would give the federal government the power to form
6 new states.
7 Our verdict
8 Misleading. The Australian constitution already gives Parliament the power to create new
9 states. The Voice would not change those powers.
10
11 The wording “Our verdict” cannot be deemed to express a mere “opinion” but a conclusion
12 which I view is withoput legal merits.
13 While the Parliament (not the Government itself) can currently create new states it is however
14 limited to do so within the legal principles embedded in the constitution and this is what Voice
15 seeks to circumvent, by the Parliament then claiming to use Voice as to create any BLACK
16 STATE(s)!
17
18 As I indicated we got “Travelling Pete” Anthony Albanese and his collaborators on the one hand
19 claiming that the ‘Uluru statement from the heart’ is a “modest” issue and to be accepted in full
20 and now backpeddling and even making clear during a 2GB interview with Ben Fordham that he
21 may say NO, etc. Over the years Aboriginal Elders expressed to me that they opposed the Voice
22 and were excluded and actually Thomas Mayo acknowledged he did so. As such, it cannot be
23 claimed to be an ‘Uluru statement from the heart’ representing all Aboriginals and should not be
24 permitted to be claimed as such. Without the required State conventions I view the entire Voice
25 proposed amendment is sheer and utter nonsense! After all the Framers of the Constitution
26 ensured that before the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill was put to
27 CONVENTIONS (over several years) for all Colonies to have an input what and how to draft
28 the Bill!
29
30
31
32 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal
33 constitution!
34
35 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
36 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
37 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

38 (Our name is our motto!)


20230729-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Department of Infrastructure-SUBMISSION Re MISINFORMATION BILL, Etc-Supplement-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20230729-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Department of Infrastructure-SUBMISSION Re MISINFORMATION BILL, Etc-Supplement-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

29-7-2023 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-7-2023 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-7-2023 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the

29-7-2023 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-7-2023 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

29-7-2023 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

37 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

29-7-2023 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like