G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission-Insulation Issues-Supplement 1

Page 1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ian Hanger, AM, QC, Royal Commissioner C/o Ms Petra Gartmann, Chief Executive Officer legal.homeinsulation@ag.gov.au 5
8-2-2014
Ref; 20140208 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission-insulation issues-Supplement 1
Sir, this submission-supplement 1 and the 6 February 2014 submission are not intended and neither must be considered to be restricted for publication. I view it is essential that my 10 submission of 6 February 2014 and this supplement 1 dated 8-2-2014 are published in full by the Royal Commission to which it is addressed as to ensureenvironment that the general public has access to all relevant details provided to this Royal Commission One of my strength of credibility in publishing books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues is, that ordinary (unless unlawful to do so) I publish 15 in my books also material of other writers no matter how contrary their writings may be to what I present. This, so my readers can evaluate from both sides their presentations. Likewise I view the Royal Commission should not selectively exclude publishing certain submissions unless certain material is contrary to law, such as containing inappropriate pictures, etc. 20 After forwarding my 6 February 2014 submission I read Internet articles which seemed to indicate the Royal Commission had issued about 100 summonses. My concern is that this Royal Commission may be more akin of a Spanish Inquisition and/or (the outlawed) STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of conduct then that which one would associate with a impartial judiciary kind of conduct. 25 QUOTE 6-2-2014 SUBMISSION
this Royal Commission (insulation issues) I submit must be open minded and not narrow minded and just accept whatever irrespective of the true meaning and application of the constitution. END QUOTE 6-2-2014 SUBMISSION
30 Parliament may have had legislative powers to enact a Royal Commission Act but I view any legal provisions and conduct of a Royal Commission must be non-political in is conduct and must be within the ambit of the true meaning and application of the constitution. As such, terms of references and the powers of the Royal Commission to act must be deemed limited by the true meaning and application of the constitution and not by whatever a Government of the Day may 35 for political reasons deem suitable. 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
40 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
.
45
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Page 1 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 2 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE
.
5 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.
10
END QUOTE Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DIBBS: I do not think we are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which those who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal form of government. END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth . END QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
And 35
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE
40
45 This Royal Commission as I understand it was essential set up as a political gimmick in that it was used as a political issue during the last federal election by the then opposition. This makes the impartiality of the Royal Commission very susceptible as to its integrity from onset. In my 6 February 2014 submission (pages 16 to 22) I alluded to the Framers of the Constitution and what they held appropriate to be subject to reporting, and I view this legal principle should 50 be forming the die cast of any Royal Commission. Below a limited quotation of this submission
QUOTE 6-2-2014 submission Hansard 3-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Page 2 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 3 QUOTE ADMISSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC. Mr. MCMILLAN rose to move: (1.) That when the Convention is engaged in debating matters formally submitted by previous notice, or submitted by consent without notice, the press and public be admitted on the order of the President. (2.) That whenever the Convention is in Committee the press and public be not admitted, unless otherwise ordered. He said: I am sure, as far as I know the minds of the delegates, that we have no desire to exclude the press from any important discussion whatever; but it is simply to discuss the order of our business and to expedite business that we desire to hold any informal meetings. Question put. END QUOTE END QUOTE 6-2-2014 submission
10
15 As such I view that unless it can be first established that there was a criminal conspiracy within the Cabinet to act in a certain manner or failing to act then I view the conduct within the Cabinet must be held to be excluded from any powers of a Royal Commission to enter into. Even if it were to be established that Cabinet knowingly decided to violate the constitution with granting funding for an insulation scheme it knew was not permitted within the legislative 20 powers provided, it still cannot then be argued that the deaths of installers was a deliberate act by Cabinet, albeit might be a reasonable consequences. For example, if a person pushes another person who then due to frail age falls and in the process gets killed then I view the subsequent death could be held against the person who pushed the victim, as had he/she not pushed in the first place the death may not have occurred. I view that 25 Mr Peter Garrett as the responsible Minister must be held legally accountable but also any person who contracted with the Federal Government but failed to appropriately train staff in how to install insulation materials. I understood one person was a licenced electrician and as such should have been aware that there are risks associated with using any staple gun in narrow confined areas, this in particular where there are electrical wires, which may also have been 30 subjected to degeneration due to age or rodents. Hence their rights must be observed and self incrimination ought to be protected against. Meaning, that the Royal Commission may very well so to say be railroaded by inability to inquire into certain aspects of matters relevant to obtain a proper view of relevant matters and may do better to suspend its inquiry until relevant criminal proceedings are completed, if any were to be pursued. The Royal Commission may very well be 35 found to have obstructed any later criminal proceedings against any alleged offender where it were to obtain evidence that may later have been found suborned from inappropriate conduct, in violation to the accused constitutional and other legal rights. When I read about 100 summonses having been issued it appears to me to be more like a political 40 fishing expedition/witch-hunt then being that of a line of investigation ordinary associated within the conduct of an impartial judiciary.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-process.html?nl=bdtod QUOTE due process
45 presumption of innocence
Page 3 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 4 mistrial Definition Save to Favorites See Examples Conduct of legal proceedings strictly according to established principles and procedures, laid down to ensure fair trial for every accused. Because the infallibility of court judgments cannot be guaranteed, the legal system aims to secure this second-best but possible option. The guaranty of due process means no accused is punished without an orderly and adequate procedure that is applicable uniformly in all cases. Under a due process, every accused gets an advance notice of trial, and an opportunity to be present, to be heard, and to defend himself or herself. It also includes the rights to (1) legal counsel, (2) confront and cross examine the witnesses, (3) refuse self-incriminating testimony, and (4) have a crime proven by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. END QUOTE
.
10
15
Marriage of Baines (1981) 7 Fam LR 226 at 229 QUOTE The adversary system involves the presentation of facts ascertained by questions put to witnesses, or legal representations to the court. The role of the judge is that of adjudicator. This does not mean that he can ask no questions but he is at common law restricted in that he cannot in general call witnesses himself. END QUOTE
.
R v Butterwasser, Court of Criminal Appeal (947)(1948) 1 K.B. 4;63 T.L.R. 463;111J.P. 527;91 S.J. 586;32 Cr
20 App R. 81(1947)ALL E.R. 415

QUOTE But it is admitted that there is no authority, and I do not see on what principal it could be said, That if a man does not go into the witness box and put his own character in issue, he can have evidence given against him of previous bad character when all he has done is to attack the witness for the prosecution. The reason is that by attacking the witnesses for the prosecution and suggesting they are unreliable, he is not putting his character in issue; he is putting their character in issue END QUOTE
25
It appears to me that this Royal Commission from onset may be deemed a political witch hunt at the very least because it was set up as part of a political election campaign. It doesnt mean that 30 this Royal Commission actually is political motivated but that it may appear to an FAIR MINDED PERSON to be so, in particular where the commissioner may be unilaterally appointed by the political partys heavyweights that used it as a political issue during the election and/or for election purposes.. 35 Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
QUOTE 1. Independence of the courts is integral to their institutional integrity. Judgments of this Court confirm the importance of the perception of a judge's role in this regard. In connection with functions which do not involve exercising judicial power, it was held in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs that legislation which required a federal judge, appointed by the Minister, to report to the Minister was invalid. Gaudron J there said that " impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are defining features of judicial power."[848] Her Honour went on to observe that a court exercising judicial power must "be and be seen to be completely independent " of the legislative and executive branches of government[849]. The need for independence and impartiality, and the separation of the judiciary and the other arms of government, also underlie the requirement of a "matter" in s 76 of the Constitution which operates to limit the circumstances in which judicial power can be exercised[850]. Closer to the subject at hand, and in connection with the application of Kable, Gummow J in Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) stated that it was preferable to view a perception which may undermine public confidence as an indicator, but not the touchstone, of invalidity. The touchstone, his Honour said, is the institutional integrity of the court[851]. 1. In some cases it may be difficult to view the way a court is perceived as unconnected to its integrity as an institution. Whilst the judgments in Totani confirmed that the practical operation of the legislation there was to enlist a judge to effect executive and legislative policy, the legislation also, and misleadingly, gave the appearance of the Magistrates Court participating in the pursuit of the objectives of the Act in question, whilst giving effect to that executive and legislative policy[852]. Problems created by the appearance of a want of independence were evident in Wainohu, where the statute denied the duty of a judge to give reasons, but at the same time created an apparent connection between the non-judicial function conferred and the exercise of jurisdiction by a Supreme Court judge. It was there said that[853]: Page 4 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
40
45
50
55
10
15
20
25
30
35
Page 5 "The appearance of a judge making a declaration is thereby created while the giving of reasons, a hallmark of that office, is denied. These features cannot but affect perceptions of the role of a judge of the court". 1. The process by which the Court of Appeal here reached its conclusion of inconsistency cannot be said to involve functions which are incompatible with, or antithetical to, judicial power. The process involves an ordinary interpretive task. The content of the declaration cannot be a cause for concern. It merely records a finding of inconsistency between s 5 of the Drugs Act and s 25(1) of the Charter. It does not answer a question directed to the Court, as to the validity of legislation, as was the case in In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts. The Court does not purport to advise as to law reform. It is not unknown for judges to incidentally pass comments upon conclusions they have reached about defects in legislation in the course of their reasons[854]. Doing so in the course of a permissible exercise of judicial power is "a function properly regarded as incidental to the exercise of the power." [855] However, that function is not a function which, if it were undertaken independently of the exercise of "a principal judicial duty" [856], might be said to "belong to an administrator." [857] The form of the process under s 36(2) does not alter that analysis. 1. The argument for the invalidity of s 36 is about perceptions. The matters in this case which are relevant to the appearance of the Supreme Court as independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Victorian State Government are (a) that the non-judicial function of making a declaration is embellished by being styled a "declaration" to give the appearance of an order of the Court; and (b) that the legislation requires a copy of the declaration to be given to the Attorney-General. 1. The first-mentioned feature calls to mind what was said in Mistretta v United States[858], namely, that the reputation of the judicial branch may not be borrowed by the legislative and executive branches "to cloak their work in the neutral colors of judicial action."[859] But that statement was directed to a legislative or executive function which was disguised by use of a court's processes. Here the declaration, whilst not dispositive because it is made only incidentally with respect to a matter, does not implement any policy or action of the executive or the legislature. Putting to one side the description given to it as a "declaration", it is readily apparent that it is no more than a statement made by the Supreme Court as to an apparent inconsistency. So far as it concerns the executive and the legislature, the statement serves only to draw attention to that effect. The steps, if any, which are proposed by the relevant Minister to change the law do not involve the Court. 1. The requirements of notification are the only mandatory aspects of the declaration process. Too much should not be read into these obligations, given that it is the Court which decides, in the first place, whether to make a declaration. In doing so it is not responsive to any legislative command. These requirements and the declaration itself are largely innocuous so far as concerns the Supreme Court. Their principal purpose is to set in train a process whereby the relevant Minister considers what should be done by way of legislative change. No incompatibility with the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court is disclosed by reference to these matters. END QUOTE
40 It shouldnt be argued that the Royal Commission itself cannot convict any person nor sentence a person irrespective of its findings, that therefore it stands apart from the impartiality of the judiciary because in the end the findings of the Royal commission may be used, and any evidence provided to it, to form the basis of criminal proceedings against any person. Hence, I view, it is obligated to be acting in a manner which doesnt nor appear to be to violate the 45 embedded constitutional legal principles such as civil and political liberties.
.
The Government (Executives) is entitled to act upon political motivations as much as it likes as long as it is within the ambit of the true meaning and application of the constitution and any subordinated law enacted within it. As such, I view Parliament is restricted in its framing of any 50 Royal Commission Act within these bounds and any part of legislation that might violate those legal principles must be deemed to be invalid.
.
No one is served with a Royal Commission to make an adverse finding against any person if in the end the High Court of Australia were to find that the Royal Commission violated 55 constitutional embedded legal principles. What we need is a Royal Commission that gives every endeavour to avoid questionable conduct by its self. Any details (evidence) the Royal Commission may desire to rely upon must therefore have been obtained following appropriate standards ordinary associated with an impartial court process.
Page 6 What indeed if evidence were to be obtained and used by the Royal Commission but later held by the High court of Australia to have been improperly obtained and then this evidence be ruled inadmissible and then because of this those who otherwise might have been convicted may now walk free? What kind of resolve does this provide to the grieving persons? 5 Indeed I view it would not only be an insult to the general community but also specifically to those grieving from the harm inflicted upon them. QUOTE correspondence 15-2-2010 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE
10
15
Clearly, it was never intended by the Framers of the Constitution that some form of STAR CHAMBER COURT and/or Spanish Inquisition was to be used to try to establish facts that 20 ordinary couldnt be obtained through ordinary processes. Hence, the Royal Commission should not be used as a fact finding exercise to see if some person(s) may be charged with criminal conduct, etc, where such evidence cannot be obtained through normal litigation.
.
In principle the Royal Commission cannot deal with matters and force witnesses to give evidence 25 which may incriminate themselves. While in some States it now appears to be allowed to apply such conduct, at least as I understand it, nevertheless I view this cannot make it lawful because no Parliament (State or Federal) can legislate in violation of constitutional embedded legal principles.
.
30 In my view the conduct of Mr Peter Garrett as a Minister was unconstitutional and unlawful in regard of the insulation program and I desire him to face the legal consequences of this but see absolutely no benefit in having some Royal Commission holding a political motivated inquiry and then by this allow Mr Peter Garrett to escape the legal consequences in the process. And with this likewise perhaps others who otherwise may in normal processes have been found guilty. 35
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration) Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient in law. END QUOTE
40
In my view, a Royal Commission itself should not cause a miscarriage of JUSTICE nor obstruct the course of JUSTICE and so any criminal aspect of a minister failing to act appropriately I 45 view should be left to the courts. If the Royal Commission was set up for no more but as some political witch hunt then forget about any criminal charges afterwards. What should be considered is shall we provide the (then) responsible Minister and others a FAIR and PROPER trial to face the legal consequences or are we more interested in what appears to be a POLITICAL WITCH HUNT? 50 http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/false-allegations-false-memories-and-falseremorse-meredith-maran/comment-page-2/
QUOTE
55
Back in the 1980s, Maran states she was swept away by the Salem Witch Trial-esque hysteria of repressed sexual abuse memories spawned by the book, The Courage to Heal
Page 7 (Bass and Davis, 1988). Bass and Davis infamously claimed, If you think it happened, it happened, which is a prime example of emotional based reasoning. END QUOTE
5 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Captain RUSSELL: It has become, I think I may almost say, a fetish throughout all British-speaking communities, that the power in every question should rest with the bare majority. That majority is often very bare and very narrow; and though to the very fullest extent I concede that the power must rest with the people, it is a very open [start page 65] question whether countries ought to be submitted to the cyclonic effects of popular gusts of passion, unchecked by any authority whatsoever, and I venture to affirm, though it may seem paradoxical, that the senate might possibly more truly represent the majority of Australasia than might the people's representatives in the house of assembly. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
There was a mass hysteria about the Weapons of Mass Destruction even engulfing the High Court of Australia to refuse to accept my lodged application for filing. No longer the truth and facts of matters were relevant. To the high Court of Australia it was that somehow Cabinet could overrule the prerogative powers of the crown regardless that constitutionally it cannot and used any excuse to railroad my application. And, so We (as a nation) participated in a mass murder and bombing Iraq back into the Stone Age. And this for political motives of a Regime Change where the RULE OF LAW was no more. . When I refused to vote in the 2001 and 2004 federal elections I was charged for FAILING TO VOTE and there was no question by lawyers involved that I was guilty. Yet, in the end I succeeded to comprehensively defeat the charges because in the end JUSTICE DID PREVAIL.. We have this mass hysteria/brainwashing that one can be compelled to vote because the Parliament enacted s245 of the Commonwealth electoral Act 1918 for this, and not a single lawyer seems to understand that this act was beyond legislative powers in that regard for numerous reasons and so was not enforceable. Still, despite my comprehensive succeesses in the appeals the Electoral commission continues to fine people and the courts continue to convict people all by mass brainwashing. Not a single court seems to have considered that if I was able to defeat the charges upon constitutional grounds then this must apply tyo all electors. The constitution wasnt framed by the Framers of the Constitution purely for my benefits only, it was framed for all and any citizen.
There is no doubt in my mind as a CONSTITUTIONALIST that Mr Peter Garrett as the responsible Minister can be held legally accountable but ultimately his guilt or innocence 40 must be determined by a court acting impartially and not upon mass hysteria. He may have his argument that he was in an induced coma in hospital and that some other person at the time was appointed and exercised his duties and obligations. Whatever his excuses may or may not be we must grand him and others the rights provided for in our constitution. Far too often people end up convicted only to be found afterwards to have been innocent. Society 45 isnt served with this. Indeed, when we for example convict a innocent person for rape or murder then it means the real culprit is left to roam around repeating his/her evil deeds. Society by this is placed in a induced lull that it is safe merely because it got a scape goat who was convicted and by this society actually has placed RUSSIAN ROULETTE with the safety of other future victims that the real culprit may now rape/murder. 50 . I represented (as a Professional Advocate) Mr France James Colosimo and he had previous a barrister representing him and was placed under administration and subjected to at least 6 contempt hearings. It was when I took over from the barrister (albeit doing so FREE OF
Page 8 CHARGE) that I exposed how more than 20 lawyers (including his former barrister) involved in the case all had assumed his guilt rather than to follow proper legal procedures to establish this. Even the members of the medical profession who had assessed Frank were found to have relied upon non existing details to make their assessment. 5 Without going into all finer details of the case it resulted that I was able to have the administration orders set aside and the contempt proceedings were stayed permanently as the evidence that was claimed to exist I proved was in law no evidence at all. Frank had 2 suspected heart attacks, one in the court room, and no matter his innocence nevertheless was suffering considerably. And Victoria Legal Aid (prior to my involvement) had 10 in their correspondence recommended to Frank to purge his contempt. What contempt when there was never any contempt?
My position is that if you really like to have a person convicted then make sure that it sticks and you provide the accused with every opportunity to defend himself/herself, so that if a 15 conviction follows it will be a solid conviction and not overturned upon appeal. When I wrote to General Cosgrove on 22 July 2002 about the need to have the Governor-General publishing a DECLARATION OF WAR before he could authorise armed forces to invade another country I reasonably expected he wouldnt care less about this and would persist to follow orders regardless what would be constitutionally permissible. And in my view he proved to do so. My writings were however not in vain, because ultimately it is evidence that he knew or ought to have known what the proper constitutional process was and it is for him to justify why he failed to follow this (Consider the Neurenburg trial that following orders is no excuse!) People in power generally hold themselves immune from prosecution and too often disregard the RULE OF LAW and even if faced with legal consequences will have taxpayers ending up paying the compensation bill, even so they should be held personally liable. This is the culture created with politicians and the Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez Solon cases are clear examples where the responsible Ministers were avoiding any responsibilities and liabilities. For this Royal Commission to therefore serve any purpose it must ensure it acts within the framework of the constitution and apply each and every legal principle embedded in the constitution. The accused has nothing more but the civil burden of proof, whereas the accuser(s) have the criminal burden of proof. If then they cannot in an ordinary manner litigate against the accused, then we should use the Royal Commission as some backdoor manner to enable a litigation to proceed by a STAR CHAMBER COURT/SPANISH INQUISITION kind of line of inquiry.
.
20
25
30
35
I hold the view that General Peter Cosgrove, John Howard, Tony Abbott, Senator George Brandis (now Attorney General involved in setting up this Royal Commission), Julie Bishop and numerous others are war criminals, committed treason, etc, but in the end it must be a court of 40 law that deals with this in an appropriate manner. Public hysteria doesnt serve justice! How indeed can one not perceive this Royal Commission to be a political tool where it was set up by Senator George Brandis and Mr Hunt where as I understand it both were involved in the Cabinet authorisation to have Australian troops committing an unconstitutional armed invasion into Iraq slaughtering untold innocent victims. How can then either of them have any credibility 45 to without political purpose have an investigation against so to say political foes where their own alleged deeds are far worse than the 4 people killed in the insulation debacle. Not that any death is to be measured against the number of other deaths of others as each dead in itself is a serious matter but one cannot ignore to compare. Many of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia many be former Iraqi citizens who had 50 so to say their family members exterminated as result of the involvement of Australian troops
Page 9 participating in the Coalition of the Willing (Murderers). To them a Royal Commission into the Iraq invasion may be more essential than a political witch hunt. And, if Mr Greg Hunt is a Minister for Environment, not an area that the Framers of the Constitution permitted to be a Commonwealth legislative power than what legal basis does the 5 Royal Commission have in that regard, I wonder? The question therefore is with whom reside legislative powers as to environment matters? In the 1904 case of Sydney Council v Commonwealth the High Court of Australia of held that a municipal council is exercising delegated powers of the State when raising land taxation in the rates and this was prohibited by the constitution against the Commonwealth without its consent. 10 We now have that the Commonwealth legislate as to environment, so does the States and so does municipal/shire councils.
.
15
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100. Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
25
Meaning that either the Commonwealth or the States (so municipal/shire councils) have 30 legislative powers as to environment but not both. Insulation was not a matter that could be deemed a dispute between two or more States as to hold that it was an interstate conflict to somehow provide the Commonwealth with federal legislative powers. Therefore, if the insulation scheme was not a federal legislative power than neither could it be within the powers of the Commonwealth to have a Royal Commission to deal with the problems 35 arising from it. We cannot have the Commonwealth to transgress upon States legislative powers merely because it decide for political reasons at the time (to suit the Australian Greens) to do so. And, in any case when there is a dispute between two or more States and the Commonwealth deals with the matters on behalf of those States then any cost involved must be born between the warring States concerned and cannot be burdened upon States that are not involved. 40 For example, if there is a dispute as to water, and the Commonwealth were to intervene as to navigation issues then any cost in that regard could only be born by the States involved and for example Tasmania would have no interest is a Murray-Darling dispute and any monies spend couldnt be derived from ordinary Consolidated Revenue Funds but must be against a special levy against the particular States involved in the dispute. 45 In my view it is essential that it is establish who really can exercise legislative powers as if the commonwealth actually merely assumed the powers to deal with insulation and for this had the insulation scheme (and so the debacle) but had, as I view it, no constitutional authority to do so then essential the Royal commission terms of references may not be valid if it is not directed at 50 first establishing the legal authority in that regard.
Page 10 We have a legal system that varies from State to State and to the Federal entity and as such a person may face a identical trial in 2 or more States and/or the Commonwealth and pending the relevant legal proceedings in each State (Territories are quasi States) and Commonwealth a person could be found not guilty in one State while on the same evidence be found guilty in 5 another State. Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).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. END QUOTE
10
For example a person charged in a remote water scarce area in the Northern Territory about 15 wasting water may more subjected to a penalty then say doing so within a large city. The High Court of Australia cannot provide additional constitutional powers to the Commonwealth merely because it desires to please it so to say political masters as the constitution specifically restricts the High Court of Australia to act within the frame work of the constitution. Therefore, unless the Commonwealth has the legislative powers regarding 20 environment to constitutionally validly allow it to have the insulation scheme, I view the Royal Commission has a fatal problem. Likewise I view was with the Sporting hall exorbitant spending, where I view there was no legislative powers to get involved in such grant wasteful scheme of monies.
.
25 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) 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 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
30
35
40 It is therefore no good to have some constitutional committee advising the Government where they are political appointees who may be inclined to advise to what the Government may desire. A person like myself would unlikely be consulted because a government that is set to expand its power base no matter what would obviously not want my kind of set out. Indeed, many of my past submissions to committees were concealed from publication by the committees as to avoid 45 the public to become aware of the details I had written about and so exposed. If this Royal commission were to likewise operate to conceal my submissions as to avoid its own legal status to be held in question then it can but only be perceived as a tool for political purposes and not as to discover the truth of matters. 50 The fact that the High Court of Australia invented the so called independence of the Commonwealth of Australia may underline its own gross disregard to act within the framework of the constitution by which it is created. A body created by a constitution cannot override this constitution!
.

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.Page 10 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 11 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE
5 And
Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
10
We can only prescribe a minimum, at all events, so that there shall be a strong guarantee to the Commonwealth, when it comes into operation, that there shall be a bench of such ability as we can secure, and in which we can all place confidence in the fairness and impartiality of its decisions as to the meaning of this Constitution and every part of it. END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 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 .
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. END QUOTE
.
25
30
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws. END QUOTE
.
35
40
45
HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: Let this speech do for the referendum also. Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people for more freedom, for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought to make provision in this Constitution by which the will of the people can become law. If we do that we shall be doing something which will make it more certain that this Constitution will be adopted by the people . Page 11 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
50
Page 12 END QUOTE

.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.
10 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE And HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE 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.
30
35
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 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
40
45 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.But these difficulties can be overcome by the proper consideration of the terms of the Constitution. I submit that the question raised here is a very much more important one than it seems to be thought by some honorable members. I think it is the very essence of the Constitution that we should preserve the form which has been adopted here, and that we should make the necessity of its adoption imperative upon the Government and the Parliament, subject to the liability of their acts being declared invalid by the Supreme Court in the event of the directions of the Constitution not being followed.
50
Page 12
8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 13 END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID.-My answer is, how could the House of Representatives put more than one subject of taxation into a proposed law? If it will be possible for the House of Representatives to put two subjects of taxation into a proposed law, in spite of the clear words of the Constitution , it will be equally possible for a Taxation Bill to be originated in the Senate without any one taking any notice of it. END QUOTE
10
Why indeed have a Royal Commission into the deaths of 4 people (no matter how serious this might be) when no Royal Commission of such nature is setup to inquire into the death of not only thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis but also Australian soldiers who died in the process. Why should those grieving for the deaths of Australian soldiers, having been the 15 casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan not being of similar importance? Is it that politically it doesnt suit what is called the Abbott Government because most in Ministerial positions themselves could face serious charges? How can we place the lives of Australian soldiers who died in the process of the murderous armed invasion into Iraq/Afghanistan of lesser value than those who were killed in the insulation 20 debacle? If we are going to deal with responsibilities of a responsible Minister then this should be so to say across the floor of the political parties and not just against political foes. .
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
25 QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE
30 How could an unlettered person perceive that the constitution grants powers listed and somehow environment not listed and specifically refused to be listed by the Framers of the Constitution then somehow is still a legislative power for the Federal Parliament?
.
HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:

We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments. END QUOTE
.
40
45
50
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
55 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs. END QUOTE Page 13 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 14 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made. END QUOTE HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question. END QUOTE
.
10
15
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states. END QUOTE
It should be clear that the High Court of Australia 2006 WorkChoices decision was in blatant 20 disregard to what the Framers of the Constitution embedded as legal principles in the constitution!
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
25
30
35
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
.

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution. END QUOTE
45
50 In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p
725 of ER)): QUOTE (T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom. END QUOTE
.
55
Page 14
Page 15
Then consider
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; QUOTE Dr. QUICK.The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens. END QUOTE
.
10
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE: I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says: One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution. END QUOTE
.
15
20 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority. END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
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 Page 15 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
40
45
50
Page 16 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

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
.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
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 Page 16 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Page 17 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
.
As such we cannot have a so called constitutional monarchy because it is not within the 10 bounds of the true meaning and application of the constitution, regardless what the political appointed judges of the High Court of Australia may seek to devise to make from it. This, as I successfully submitted on 19 July 2006 and so unchallenged, in the County Court of Victoria it places in question the validity of any lawyer practicing law as unless they possess Australian citizenship as a nationality, that is not recognised in the constitution, their 15 appointments are without constitutional validity. Likewise the judges or any commissioner befalls the same fate. Constitutionally there is no such country as Australia or the Commonwealth of Australia as Australia is a landmass but generally associated as a reference to the Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing more but a political union. One may 20 compare this to the European Union. . It would be beyond the scope of this submission supplement 1 to go in all relevant details and I view neither is required because I published the complete set out about this matters in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. 25 It also means that while Attorney-General Senator George Brandis purportedly signed the document by the command of the Governor-General and claiming to be the deputy of the Governor-General reality is that the constitution specifically denied any Minister to be a deputy of the Governor-General, being it at meetings or otherwise. 30 .
Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters.
35 END QUOTE The same applies to a Minister who is exercising a executive function then acting somehow for and on behalf of the Governor-General to exercise royal prerogative.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
40 QUOTE
4 Provisions relating to Governor-General The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of the Commonwealth; but no such person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the Commonwealth in respect of any other office during his administration of the Government of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
45
50
Page 17
10
15
20
25
30
35
Page 18 As both Senator George Brandis and Minister Greg Hunt are claiming a salary then I view both are excluded to act for and on behalf of the Governor-General. And, as the Parliament cannot exercise royal prerogative powers nor can interfere with this then unless and until a Governor-General (that is one validly appointed within the true meaning and application of the constitution) had published in the Gazette a proclamation I view the royal commission itself may be questionable in its legal standing. It doesnt matter what conventions may have been and may still be used as in the end conventions cannot override the true meaning and application of the constitution. Hence, where a Governor-General is required to appoint a person to conduct a Royal Commission then I view this must be done within the context of the true meaning and application of the constitution and if the appointment was merely made allegedly under the command of the Governor-General, as it appears this was claimed to be so, then I view the Royal Commission has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. It should be understood that many of the issues raised by me in my 6 February 2014 submission and this 8 February 2014 submission supplement 1 were canvassed by me in my submissions on 19 July 2006 and the Commonwealth of Australia and neither any other AttorneyGeneral (despite a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS having been served upon all of them) sought in any way to challenge my submissions and for this in law they were therefore accepted in law and as the High Court of Australia itself in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 made clear that once an issue has been litigated between the same parties then neither can seek to re-litigate the same, as there must be an end to litigation. As none of the Attorney-Generals appealed the decision of the County Court of Victoria then clearly they all were deemed to have accepted the Court upholding my appeals unchallenged, upon the numerous submissions based upon constitutional grounds. It should be kept in mind that the Sue v Hill decision by the High Court of Australia was made in regard of exercising for the parliament the issue of a disputed election (as such a political exercise) and not as a Court of law considering matters and handing down a judgment upon facts. The Court merely assumed, on behalf of the politicians, that over time the Commonwealth of Australia became independent. This was beyond the High Court of Australia judicial powers to assume as it was created not above the constitution but to exercise judicial powers within the true meaning and application of the constitution. No constitutional amendment was sought nor authorised by way of referendum within s128 as to allow somehow the Commonwealth of Australia to alter its status from being a POLITICAL UNION to become an alleged CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.
.
40
45
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 Australasian Convention) QUOTE Page 18 Mr. MUNRO:
50 Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Page 19 I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else.
5 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 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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. END QUOTE
.
10
15

QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST: We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired his appointment. END QUOTE
25
30
As such I view the High Court of Australia to suit so to say its political masters decided against Heather Hill to be a Senator this even so it is embedded in the constitution that she was a citizen had this political right to be a Senator. Likewise Phil Cleary was in my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST validly elected to the Federal Parliament. This I canvassed also to 35 great extend in my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. That is also why we have a BLACKHOLE IN THE CONSTITUTION because we do not have any proper system in place that will guard against infringements upon the constitution as the High Court of Australia fails to do so and indeed obstruct this to be done. And while somehow 40 the access to us being still British subjects regardless if this is thwarted, to the Privy Council as somehow the High Court of Australia is purportedly the ultimate source of judicial powers, we then have, albeit unconstitutionally, that the Federal Government signed into treaties of an international court and other courts where now foreigners not accepting the High Court of Australia determination can resort to another judicial system, whereas Australians are prevented 45 the same avenues.
.
50
It therefore appears to me we are brainwashed to accept some constitutional monarchy and so as to enable Ministers to exercise a greater power than that which they can as Ministers within our constitutional context.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of hon. gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr. Deakin, talks about the powers Page 19 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
55
Page 20 exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. They do not differ in any respect from the powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in any other country. Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here! Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.
5
.
Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited! END QUOTE
Basically as I view it as a CONSTITUTIONALIST our constitution and its embedded legal principles are hijacked by political gangsters and the courts have allowed them to do so to serve 10 their political masters. The politicians desire a separation from the British Crown and have set up the purported Queen of Australia system so they can pursue unlimited powers while on the other hand when it suit them that is use the constitution as a excuse for whatever they desire.
15 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures , and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority. END QUOTE HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it. END QUOTE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every one is agreed that this clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is only to be a power of the Parliament, it is not worth while to discuss the question of whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in the words. Where there is a wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton that there is no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 readsAny matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing powers, or of any other powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive Government of the Commonwealth, or in any department or officer thereof. I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers. The Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English law, one of whose principles is that the Queen can do no wrong. That is the foundation on which the Constitution is established. END QUOTE Page 20 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
45
50
Page 21
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:

.
5 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
10 Therefore, it is not relevant if the Commonwealth were to engage in international treaties as it cannot be used to by a backdoor manner gain legislative powers it was not specifically provided with.
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
15 QUOTE Dr. QUICK.The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens. END QUOTE Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution, where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think, ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes. END QUOTE Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. END QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
45
THEREFORE, EXERNAL AFFAIRS POWERS CANNOT BE A VEHICLE TO CREATE LEGISLATIVE POWERS NOT OTHERWISE LISTED WITHIN S51 OTHERWISE!
HANSARD 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding one-"External affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true; but there are a very large number of people who look forward with interest to the Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part of the British Empire, the regulation of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to whether the one thing is included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in this question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the subsection may do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be pressed. Page 21 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
50
55
Page 22 END QUOTE HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term " due process of law"? 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?
10
Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions. 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. END QUOTE
15
20 IF THEREFORE THE COMMONWEALTH CAN CREATE ANY TREATY AS IT DOES WITH MANY COUNTRIES BUT IT CANNOT LEGALLY ENFORCE IT AGAINST ITS CITIZENS THEN OBVIOUSLY THE TREATY IT ENGAGE IN ONLY CAN BECOME VALID IN LAW IF IT IN THE FIRST PLACE POSESSES LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO ENFORCE THE TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT AS A TREATY BUT AS A LAW IN ITS 25 OWN RIGHT. To hold otherwise would basically undermine the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution to limit Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers to the subsections provided for. For this the question should be asked if the terms of references of the Royal Commission is 30 appropriate and sufficient as to determine if it act validly within the true meaning and application of the constitution and not despite of it.
.
Perhaps, it may very well be appropriate for a Royal Commission to be established to inquiry into if the Department of Environment and its operations in fact is constitutionally valid. And in 35 the process of this if expenditure and other associated matters were within the power of the Federal Parliament to permit and within the powers of the Federal Government to execute. The same could be done in regard of the purported education spending on the sporting halls, the invasion into Iraq, the payment of tax excluded incomes such as to the former chairman of the AWA when attending to Iraq, etc. then this would be an so to say across the board inquiry that 40 would cover the conduct of all political parties in government and so not some political witch hunt by one set of politicians against another set of politicians. Indeed, this would be the type of inquiry I view would actually serve a better purpose for the general community. We must also consider what really is sought to be achieved with the Royal commission, as after 45 all so to say band aid solutions will ignore the core problems. Let me use an example. When I was a quality control officer I would time and time again reject Teco nails for failing to be to the requirements of the customer order. After several promotions I
10
15
20
Page 23 ended up in charge of the factory and I held this wide spread problem also with other products had to be appropriately investigated. With my background I held to be the right person to do so. I then discovered that the real problem was with the gauges used by the workers. Some were as to standards while others were not even so all were branded identical. As such, pending which gauge the worker used he was adjusting his machine and so either moved the setting to the correct setting required or contrary to it. Once I had resolved this issue most of the faulty production was avoided from then on. As such rather than blaming the worker from onset I was open minded and diligently investigated every aspect of production. Likewise I view we need to do with the problems of government. If we fail to do so then the insulation debacle will be repeated time and time again in other department in other matters. We do not resolve the core issue at all that underlines most problems. On what basis is a Department created? Why do we have a Minister assisting a Minister when the Framers of the Constitution specifically embedded the legal principle that only one person, the responsible Minister ultimately should be responsible? As such the creation of a diversion of portfolios may suit the political position of a Prime Minister so all his /her mates get a well-paid job (As unless they are privately employed all Members of Parliament not holding a Ministerial position are unemployed just getting a lot more paid then others on the dole.) what we need to do is to return to the basics of the true meaning and application of the constitution and not go along with all kinds of unconstitutional conventions. Take for example, the Minister for Sport. Upon what constitutional basis is this Ministry created I wonder? We had for example Mr John Howard and other Prime Ministers giving away monies to other countries and so for education, this even so no constitutional powers exist for this.
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention ) (Re Section 96 of the Constitution) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it.
25
30
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were? Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power implied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and definite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one consolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided in this Constitution. Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term " public services of the Commonwealth." Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such a case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside these limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were carried giving monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought would not be attained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such power either expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the future of the [start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given. END QUOTE
35
40
45
50 So, how could Joe Hockey as new incoming treasurer give away about $8 billion to the Reserve Bank of Australia, a private company, without there being any Parliament in session to authorise such expenditure?
Page 23
Page 24 Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GLYNN Does that put a maximum on military expenditure?
Mr. PEACOCK: A maximum on all expenditure! Mr. BARTON: It seems to me to put a maximum on all expenditure, because the whole of the expenditure cannot exceed the total yearly expenditure in the performance of the services and powers given by the Constitution, and any powers subsequently transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. Mr. SYMON: Does that prevent any increase in case of war?
10
Mr. BARTON: Yes. END QUOTE

.
Why then also considering that a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION may be required if money bills fail to pass, do we allow the Budget to be handed down in may just before the new financial year 15 when in fact the constitutional process requires at least 6 months, considering a possible DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and a joint sitting? Why do we have interim Budgets when this undermines the business confidence. After all businesses must plan ahead for things like overhead cost and can be destroyed if suddenly the Commonwealth increases taxation where constitutionally it is not permitted to do so. As such it then must be asked what Appropriation 20 Bills were passed when the Rudd led government decided to squander so much huge amount of money, in billions of dollars, upon the school sporting halls fiasco and the insulation debacle? Holding now some people accountable but ignoring the underlying cancer within the Commonwealth of Australia is not going to resolve matters for one of iota for the long term. 25 Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform. END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided. END QUOTE
Yet, despite of this the commonwealth of Australia has gone about suborning tax exclusions for numerous people. As such as the gun toting former chairman of the AWA going to Iraq with a
Page 25 reported $1 million tax free payment. This was unconstitutional and so also in numerous other areas where tax free incomes are provided unless they are provided for all people with the same income in taxation brackets on a sliding scale.
.

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation including more than the one subject of taxation , and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be imperatively required, in the discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage of its existence. END QUOTE
10
15
We are now financial crippled and politicians willing to so to say sell their mothers grave for their political goals, rather than to confine themselves within what is constitutionally permissible. After all, where Appropriation Bills for the year were to be matched with the Taxation Bills for the same year then the extra ordinary expenditure that was engaged in with the school sporting 20 halls and the insulation scheme never could have been constitutionally that is justified.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).In an Appropriation Act we should have so many hundred thousand pounds for this, and so many hundred thousand pounds for that, and other items; but we should have no detail whatever. In no Appropriation Act passed by any Parliament is there given small details of the amounts appropriated. An Appropriation Act would often include amounts of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and larger sums, the details of which would be lost altogether in the mass of votes included in the Act. Therefore, it is quite impossible for any court to tell from the mere construction of an Appropriation Act whether the items do comprise moneys required for the ordinary annual services of the Government, even if that phrase "ordinary annual services of the Government" were beyond dispute. Personally, I do not know what the phrase means, and I do not suppose it is possible for anybody definitely to say what it means. Mr. REID.-With a new Government it will be a very difficult matter to know what are "ordinary annual services."
25
30
35
Mr. HOLDER.-Yes; but every item must be an annual expenditure, not one which comes on specially. Now, we all know that all sorts of special emergencies arise in every country, and that special provision has to be made for every such emergency. Mr. ISAACS.-Would 50,000 for contingencies be regarded by the court as money appropriated for the ordinary annual services of the Government?
40
Mr. REID.-That would be a nice question for the High Court to determine. END QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-Suppose you had in the Appropriation Bill, a grant of 500 payable to John Brown, and it was not one of the ordinary annual services of the Government: could not the court, under this sub section, set the whole law aside? Mr. BARTON.-There is no doubt that I might be tempted to return the same answer to that question which a speaker on a memorable occasion returned. Mr. ISAACS.-It is a very good reason for not having the clause in the Bill. Mr. BARTON.-It is no reason for not having the clause in the Bill. If my learned friend thinks that the words as they stand are liable to confusion, if he thinks that the ordinary annual Page 25 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
45
50
10
15
20
25
Page 26 services. of the Government do not sufficiently define the ordinary annual Appropriation Bill-an Act which the Government must pass to carry on its own existence -let him suggest some better form of words. Let him make the clause clearer, and by so much as he makes it [start page 2019] clearer he loses the whole point and effect of his own argument. If the court were to decide that this grant of money to John Brown is part of the ordinary annual services of the Government, let it be so; but if it is not to decide the question we will soon find that out, and it can be rectified in six hours. Mr. TRENWITH.-But in the meantime the whole Bill goes. Mr. ISAACS.-The whole law goes. Mr. BARTON.-In the meantime the whole Bill need not go. We know very well that the whole Bill does not go under these circumstances, and I am astonished that some of my honorable friends have not sufficient recollection of Victorian history not to tell us that. Mr. ISAACS.-We have too vivid a recollection of Victorian history to allow this to pass. Mr. BARTON.-Well, summing up, if the argument is that the sub-section should be made clearer, let us have suggestions for the clearing of the sub-section, and, in proportion as those suggestions are good, the necessity for my learned friend's amendment diminishes; but I submit that where a law bears on its face the evidence of an infraction of the Constitution, we should be entitled not to allow the process of that law to be regulated by mere methods of procedure, but to submit them to the determination of the court, because of the evil which appears on their faces. Then, as regards the objections taken to clause 54, I submit that under that clause the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives are correlative rights, but that we are not here to confer rights on Chambers, except by way of making them instruments of the rights of the people -that so far as we assume to do that we do that sufficiently under clause 54, a clause relating to procedure, without invoking a judicial tribunal to interfere with mere matters of procedure; but that where the matters are not only procedure, but go beyond procedure, so as to be matters which carry on their face the evidence of distinct infractions of the Constitution, then, as we do under clause 55, we do right to submit those matters to the judicial tribunal. END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
Therefore, if the sudden expenditure of billions of dollars on the school sporting halls and the insulation scheme were not specifically authorised by appropriation Bills then the funding themselves was from onset for this also unconstitutional. No one could argue that the funding of the insulation scheme was part of annual services and so it required a special legislation of Appropriation Bills with accompanied special taxation bills as to raise the monies proposed to be spent on the insulation scheme, as was likewise applicable with the school sporting halls issue. Likewise on the billion dollars promised to Indonesia, the additional monies spend on the armed invasion into Ira and Afghanistan, etc. Because if we fail to address this then we simply will allow unchecked dictatorship to continue to flourish and what may be now in issue the death of 4 people may soon or later turn out to involve hundreds if not thousands of citizens. For example, Woomera is used by the Commonwealth of Australia not just for Commonwealth purposes but unconstitutionally used for test flights, etc, of foreign nations of their products. Again a blatant disregard to what is constitutionally permissible. One day one plane may lose a payload and if this happens to be in Adelaide it may if not destroy the entire city of churches may wipe out a huge part of it. Out government has become a foreign registered corporation and no longer is a constitutional kind of federal executive. And there is no end in sight as to on-going abuses to both sides of the political divine.
As I have extensively written in the past the GST is in breach of the embedded legal principles in the constitution as it is taxation on more than one item. As a matter of fact when in regard of a 50 2010 State election customs sought to extort from me payment for GST I filed a comprehensive complaint (based on constitutional embedded legal principles) and I was immediately advised that my material held by Customs was released without any GST payment required. We can hold numerous Royal Commissions and many lawyers will get so to say quick rich by 55 this but in the end it will accomplish nothing if the lives and wellbeing of the general community remains subject to the unconstitutional wimps of politicians.
Page 27
Any Government that sets up an inquiry like a Royal Commission but then its term of references are in such manner to prevent a responsible Minister and others to be held legally accountable then such a Royal Commission is merely so to say a political gimmick. We saw this with the 5 inquiry into the Iraq wheat scandal. The setup of the Royal Commission must be considered in the same manner as to how the Framers of the Constitution expressed themselves:
.

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. END QUOTE HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE
15
20
25
If therefore the Royal Commission was set up for political purposes, such as to gain political advantage from such royal commission then I view the creation of this Royal Commission may 30 be deemed to be invalid, regardless if otherwise the legislation may provide for a Royal Commission to be setup.
.
35
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy. END QUOTE
.
For example. A police officer may issue a parking infringement notice to a motorist unlawfully 40 parked and would be acting within the law doing so, however, if he say stands across the road and is talking to a person and say comment You see this motorist, he defeated me in court, yesterday, and so I will get him back now and issue a parking infringement notice. Then the matter becomes a conspiracy and unlawful. This, as the motive is not to hold the motorist ordinary legally accountable but rather it was for the officer to get back upon the motorist for 45 having defeated the officer in legal proceedings the day before. As I referred to in my 6 February 2014 submission, when it came to the unconstitutional murderous invasion into Iraq with so many thousands upon thousands of innocent people being slaughtered as result of the involvement of the Australian armed forces then somehow no Royal 50 Commission was set up to investigate matters. As such the conduct of those now having setup the Royal Commission against their political foes while not doing the same in regard of their own unconstitutional and so unlawful conduct may underline that the motives of setting up this Royal Commission is at the very least questionable. 55 QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931
Page 27
Page 28 The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is whether it has been established that it might reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the judge might not resolve the question before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind END QUOTE
It may very well be questioned if the conduct of issuing a reported 100 summonses may have been rather politically motivated than having been the conduct of an IMPARTIAL Royal Commission. Indeed, could the Royal Commission have first sought persons to volunteer to give evidence and 10 only in the extreme, if no other alternatives were reasonably available, issue summonses and only where appropriate.
.
15
How many of the summonses that were issued could have been done without would be a cardinal question?
.
20
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
Those who died and those who are grieving are not served with some STAR CHAMBER COURT and/or SPANISH INQUISITION kind of Royal Commission, rather it may add to the grieving and injustices. Hence, we must be careful to observe above all the legal principles 25 embedded in the constitution even if this means someone would escape the legal consequences of his/her conduct. After all, if we are willing to sacrifice the true meaning and application of the constitution for a temporary resolve suiting for the moment, then we are no better than any 30 tyrant/dictator. This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all issues/details. There is a huge amount of issues that are relevant to this also such as were the Appropriation Bills required for non-annual expenditure of Government business, for 35 the insulation scheme approved by the Parliament, and if so then the liability of this lies also with the then Opposition. If not why then didnt the Opposition place the matter before the Courts, etc?
40 QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.Surely there would be at least one representative out of the whole Senate and one member of the House of Representatives, who would have individuality enough, and strength enough, to get up and challenge the order of any particular measure which might be disorderly under this clause of the Constitution. Mr. ISAACS.-They would not all sit on the same side of the House.
45
50
Mr. HOLDER.-I should think not. They would not all be Ministerialists, or all members of the Opposition, or all members of any particular party; and I cannot believe that any Bill which contained anything objectionable at all could pass through both Houses of the Federal Legislature without finding some one member of either of the two Houses who would rise to a point of order , and have such a Bill laid aside of necessity as being out of order under this provision. END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Page 28 8-2-2014 Submission Supplement 1 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) 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, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
10
15
Page 29 Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to call attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the members of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; it only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legal interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to be ruled out of order. 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. Neither House could pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's or President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution. END QUOTE
In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST the Royal Commission if it were to hold that it can in a valid constitutional manner invoke its powers then it should look at matters from onset. Not just be or can be deemed to be a tool in the hands of politicians.
.

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE
This is why a person like myself as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, not being so to say 25 brainwashed during legal studies is so valuable because rather than accept whatever convention may be in place I consider what is constitutionally permissible and appropriate first of all. Should we employ public servants upon the wimps of their political masters or should we engage public servants who without fear or favour can speak up in the interest of the 30 general community? The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Abbott exchanges saw many public servants leaving, re-employed, etc, and to what benefit to the general community one may ask? A Governor-General can call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION but cannot mingle into political affairs. Nor did he need to do so as he could have authorised payments and later 35 have the new Parliament approving this by Appropriation Bills. Just shows that the Governor-General (and his legal advisors) neither understood the true meaning and application of the constitution. In my view it was a conspiracy between Sir John Kerr and Mr Malcolm Fraser so to say outsmart Gough Withlam, have a DOUBLE DIDSOLUTION called after passing supply bills in the Senate, by this overlooking that there was no need 40 for this passing of supply in the circumstances. No one seems to have understood that when in 1975 Sir John Kerr dismissed the Withlam Government he had the constitutional powers to authorise expenditure, as to meet Government ordinary expenditure. It was the passing of supply bit that made it all unconstitutional. Here we had a acting Prime Minister dictating the Senate how to vote! That I view was regarded by the Framers of the 45 constitution to be TREASON!
.
50
55
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
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

10
Page 30 QUOTE 57 Disagreement between the Houses If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. END QUOTE
15 In my view the conduct of Sir John Kerr fell outside the provisions of s57 and to me proved that in the hast to so to save his own skin Governor-General Sir John Kerr involved Malcolm Fraser to so to say do the dirty work for him. Constitutionally supply should have been before the parliament to allow sufficient time for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION, if needed, and so Sir John Kerr failed in my view to ensure this 20 eventuated say before the end of the previous year. I know of no constitutional provision to allow the Governor-General to do as Sir John Kerr did. It might be open to him to withdraw commission of any Minister, and it might be open to him to call for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION, but he cannot interfere in a political stoush between 25 political opponents. Before the first Federal Parliament existed, it was the Governor-General who personally authorised all and any expenditure to run the Commonwealth of Australia, as there was no Parliament in place to authorise Appropriation Bills. Therefore a Governor-General possesses the constitutional powers to authorise ordinary expenditure, albeit it is for the Parliament that 30 subsequently is sitting to consider retrospectively passing Appropriation Bills for this. In my view we have a cancer within our governments (not just the federal government) and need to address matters appropriately as ensure a brighter future, for those who will live long after we have passed on. 35 Note: English is not my native language and neither did I have formal education in the English language and so if despite of this I nevertheless can better understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate than consider my writings for this! Awaiting your response, 40 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
Page 30

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission-Insulation Issues-Supplement 1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Royal Commission-Insulation Issues-Supplement 1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Page 1

Ref; 20140208 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Royal Commission-insulation issues-Supplement 1

5 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20 App R. 81(1947)ALL E.R. 415

55 HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 12 END QUOTE

10 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

35 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

40 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

20 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

10 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20 Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

15 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

5 QUOTE Mr. SYMON:

Page 22 END QUOTE HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. BARTON: Yes. END QUOTE

5 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

10 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Anda mungkin juga menyukai