201704124-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION To Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 7

Page 1
Coroner Sara Hinchey J 24-4-2017

Coroners Court of Victoria
65 Kavanagh Street, Southbank, VIC 3006
5 Phone: 1300 309 519 Calling from overseas: (+61 3) 8688 0700
Fax: 1300 546 989
General enquires (including submissions of all Forms): courtadmin@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
Coronial Admissions and Enquires Office: cae@coronerscourt.vic.gov.au
10 Ref: 20170424-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supllement 7

Madam,
Further to my 13 February 2017 submission and Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 of 13-
4-2017, Supplement 3+COMPLAINT, Supplement 4+COMPLAINT, Supplement
5+COMPLAINT, Supplement 6I hold it appropriate to provide this Supplement 7
15
Issue: CRIME AND RELIGION
I understood from various reports that the driver of the vehicle (Swanston Street and Flinders
Street intersection) doing wheelies or so was allegedly using religious rantings/shouting.
20 In my view there is a considerable misconception about CRIME and RELIGION that even
judges make errors.
QUOTE
Presentation by Australian Shiite Imam Mohammad Tawhidi.
Rotary Club of Adelaide, 21 March 2017.
25 People
Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>
22 Apr at 1:38 PM
To
Jim
30 Hide
Attachments
Aust. Shiite Imam Mohammad Tawhidi. Rotary Club of Adelaide. 21 March 2017.mp4
Message body
35 The attached video contains a presentation on Islam in Australia, by Australian Shiite Imam
Mohammad Tawhidi, at the Rotary Club of Adelaide on 21 March 2017. Mr. Tawhidi presents
a lucid and informative viewpoint that many reasonable minded people would agree with.
Page 1 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
Page 2
Jim
END QUOTE
5 I intent to attach a copy of this video to this email as part of my submission.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I can only but endorse what Shiite Imam Mohammad Tawhidi
stated. This as most of it I have set out in past published writings. We cannot and shouldnt
accept that any writings purportedly being religious writings are published freely as religious
10 books where they are inciting rape, murder, etc.
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
15 amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
20 Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
25 END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and
indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the
30 theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what
we can to provide against it.
END QUOTE
It therefore should be understood that while religious freedom is provided for it can however not
be in violation with ordinary criminal legal provisions.
35 Any religion that say promotes the rape of a woman walking on her own would fall foul upon
ordinary criminal laws protecting womens rights to have safe passage on the streets and any
alleged religious doctrine cannot be used to violate without sanction such legal provisions.
Likewise, any religion that promotes to kill unbelievers, etc, is not a religion of peace and would
fall foul on ordinary criminal law as it clearly promotes violence and hatred.
40 Politicians/lawyers/judges cannot undermine the constitutional rights of any citizen in the
commonwealth (USA and/or Commonwealth of Australia) by allowing so called refugees in
which follow a doctrine that one can kill unbelievers. I view that it would violate the USA and/or
Page 3
Commonwealth of Australia constitutions to allow those promoting or following a doctrine of
violence into the country.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

5 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
10
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html
15
Rapists and burglars avoiding jail with new
non-custodial penalties on the up
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/rapists-and-burglars-avoiding-jail-
20 with-new-non-custodial-penalties-on-the-up/story-fnii5sms-1227317609131
Community outrage as another child rapist is allowed back

at school
25 http://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenting/parenting-news/perth-child-rapist-allowed-back-at-
school-35938
As I understand it we had the County Court of Victoria excusing a rapist for having grown up
30 (albeit born in Australia) under the doctrine of Sharia law. Why have criminal laws if one merely
has to use any religious excuse to justify violations of rules of law?
.
In my view Shiite Imam Mohammad Tawhidi is correct that Australian law is the principle law
and not some religious law or doctrine.
35
Lest look upon another misconception about religious issues. It is important that we address
those issues
QUOTE
40 Why Muslims cannot hold Office in Australia.
People
Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>

Today at 16:48 (9-4-2017)
45 To
Page 4
Jim
Hide
Photos
image001.jpg
5 image002.png
Message body
From: Andrew Taylor <andrew.taylor2020@bigpond.com>

Date: Monday, 3 April 2017 at 9:39 am
10 To: Andrew Taylor <andrew.taylor2020@bigpond.com>
Subject: Why Muslims cannot hold Office in Australia | ConCit
15 Why Muslims cannot hold Office in Australia

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution may prevent all Muslims from taking
any form political office on a matter of allegiance.
The practice of every Muslim requires the reverent bowing five times a day to a
location point outside of Australia to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The practice of being a
20 Muslim also requires an unswerving allegiance to the Ummah.
The Ummah is the nation of Islam to which every Muslim belongs. According to the
Koran each individual is commissioned to protect and support the Ummah with their
life, money and possessions.
The Ummah is without land boundaries, supersedes blood ties and the host nation in
25 which any Muslim resides. Instead Mecca has become the quintessential religious
monument of the Ummah for Muslims across the globe.
Recently the Australian National Islamic Council and Hizb-ut Tahrir (HUT) urged the
Australian Government to consult with the Muslim community before embarking on
a Middle East offensive and joining our allies against ISIS. Both of these bodies were
30 acutely aware that the Sunni Muslims in Australia would consider an attack by our
Government on a Sunni Muslim in another part of the world as an attack on their
brother or sister.
Here is the issueISIS is comprised of Sunni Muslims and considered by many in

Australias Muslim community as waging a holy jihad on behalf of Islam against the
35 Alowite (Shiite) Muslim government of Syria. An attack on ISIS would be considered
by some, as an attack on the Sunni Muslim community in Australia and would
give cause for a reprisal action against the attackersnamely the Australian public and
the Australian government.

Page 5
This warning was given to the Australian Government by the Australian National
Islamic CouncilIf the Australian Government is serious about reducing the terror
threat locally, then it must review its foreign policy decisions with regard to this
region.
5 This allegiance to the Ummah, leaves Muslims unsuitable for resettlement in

Australian as it contravenes the Australia First requirement both of our Oath of
Alliance and the limitations of Australias Multiculturalism Policy which stipulates a
commitment to Australian Interests first.
If a person is unable to commit to Australia first they simply cannot become a citizen
10 nor should be considered for resettlement in our country.We have witnessed over the
year Muslims who have been born and bred in Australia willing to give up their lives in
order to fight in another country (Syria) alongside their Sunni brothers and sisters.
Their actions reiterate that Australia is just the host country for these members of the
wider Muslim community.
15 This is the problem when a people subscribe to a totalitarian system like Islam. They
can never be members of another tribe. This primary commitment to the Ummah
completely separates them from any host nation or community.
This same allegiances has political ramifications. It requires Muslim political

candidates to consider the needs of the Ummah above the needs of non believing
20 Australians. This lack of equality makes them unfit to hold any form of government
office. It would be imprudent to say the least, to have subjects of the Ummah ruling
over any Australian citizens. Therefore Muslim political candidates need
to be disqualified from standing for office according to Section 44 of our constitution.
Section 44 of the Australian Constitution lists the grounds for disqualification on who
25 may become a candidate for election to the Parliament of Australia. In particular
section 44 (i) states that any person who Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance,
obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to
the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:
Australia first and not Ummah first is the requirement of citizenship in Australia. No
30 Muslim can be a citizen or in any form of office from federal to local government, if, as
part of their commitment to being a Muslim renders them unable to put Australias
interests first above that of the Ummah.
In a recent poll done in Austria in Die Presse (2013):
1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a

35 Muslim.
This is now becoming a cultural dilemma for Australians, Muslims and our Government
and it needs addressing.
Section 44 of the Australian Constitution
44. Any person who -(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or
40 adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or
privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to
be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a
State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or
Page 6
(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or
(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the
pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public
5 Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the
other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five
persons:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House
of Representatives.
10 But sub-section iv. does not apply to the office of any of the Queens Ministers of State
for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queens Ministers for a State, or to the receipt
of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queens
navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military
forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed
15 by the Commonwealth.
http://concit.org/why-muslims-cannot-hold-office-in-australia/
END QUOTE
20 And we also have the claims:
QUOTE email 22-4-2017

Fw: : Enlist your support to oppose an unconstitutional DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION
25 Tusk <Tusk1@ecn.net.au>

Today at 0:36 (22-4-2017)
To
Gerrit Schorel-Hlavak O.W.B
30 Hide
CC
Kenneth Ivory
Hide
Message body
35
Hello Gerrit, I just receive your below email this

evening forward on to me from a friend.
40 Some friendly FOOD FOR your powerful THOUGHT!
The purported Governor General and the purported

Chief Justice who swore purportedly him in and the
Page 7
Prime Minister who appointed him are all CATHOLICS
so the Constitution and Her Majestys supreme authority
to them as Catholics does conflict with Her Majestys rites of
the Church of England.
5
Thereby their oaths of allegiance given to Her Majesty ought
to have but by their Catholic fibs it clearly never had true or
truthful and or the actual effect of repudiating the Popes
spiritual authority of the Vatican City, in allegiance to Her
10 Majesty and Her Church of England Constitutional superior
authority.
So may because the G-G is a Catholic is why the G-G does not
want your emails? How can a Catholic uphold the Church of
15 England Superior Constitutional Authority of Her Majesty?
Kind Regards
Kenneth-Clyde Ivory.
20 ----- Original Message -----

From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:09 AM
Subject: Enlist your support to oppose an unconstitutional DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
25
I urge people to write to the Governor-General as I have been blocked from doing so
for many years, and that they include the following in their writings. By each person
emailing their own correspondence but including my writings then it is still their
correspondence, hence no reason to have it blocked. If enough people were to do so
30 then we might just achieve people power to get back to some sanity.
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
35 The governor-general, as representative of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute
with all the powers which should belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of
attack, because he should act only on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to
obtain the sanction of Parliament for their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought
into intimate relation with the electorates. This is true, popular government.
40 END QUOTE
When a Minister places a bill before the parliament and is unable to achieve the
Parliament to approve it, then the Minister should vacate/resign. This as he doesn't have
the confidence of the Parliament.
45 .
With the ABCC Bill (Australian Building and Construction Commission) it was placed
before the Parliament in December 2014 but then defeated in the Senate.
Section 57 of the constitution requires that a Bill
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
50 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
Page 8
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
5 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. But such dissolution
shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry
10 of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.
END QUOTE
Clearly within the provisions of s57 of the constitution when the bill was again placed
before the Senate on 4 February 2016 and failed to pass then any adjournment is still
15 failing to pass and the Bill therefore was defeated.
As such thereafter the Governor-General on advise or otherwise was entitled to hold that
the government was unable to govern and as such within the provisions to call a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION.
20 .
However, the Framers of the Constitution also made it very clear that if the government
held the Bill was not that important then the government instead of seeking a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION could restart the process all over again and re-introduced it again. As
such the third time that becomes the first time. As such, when the Senate rejected the Bill
25 again on 18 April 2016 then the Bill cannot be presented for the effectively second time
after a period of 3months being 18 July 2016. This has not happened.
.
It would in my view be sheer idiotic and an abuse of prerogative powers in for the
governor-General to issue a proclamation to effect a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION where
30 clearly since 4 February 2016 the government continued to govern and as such cannot
justify any DOUBLE DISSOLUTION merely after it first hands down its budget.
.The governor-General in my view should have called for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTUION
months earlier, regardless of the failure of the ABCC Bill because section 57 also requires
that the process to pass the Appropriation Bills means it needs to allow for 2 sessions of
35 parliament or one continuous session with an interval of at least 3monrhs, plus a period of
election as well as it being put to the parliament again thereafter, and as such the
Appropriation bills required to be submitted to the parliament say 6months before they
require to be in force at the new financial year commencing 1 July of each calendar year.
40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
2 Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
Majestys representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
45 may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queens pleasure,
but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
END QUOTE
50
Therefore the Governor-General in my view cannot authorize in the circumstances prevailing any
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION this as he would be acting in violation of the legal principles embedded
in the constitution.
Page 9
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
5
What the Chief Justice of the United States stated was this:-
The writ of mandamus cannot issue in a case where its effect is to direct or control the
head of an Executive department in the discharge of an executive duty involving the
exercise of judgment or discretion. U.S. ex rel., Redfeld v. Windom 137 U.S., 636, 644.
10 When by special statute or otherwise a mere Ministerial duty is imposed upon the
executive officers of the Government; that is, a service which they are bound to perform
without further question, then, if they refuse, the mandamus may be issued to compel them.
U.S. ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128, U.S. 40, 48 The writ goes to compel a party to do that
which it is his duty to do without it. It confers no new authority, and the party to be coerced
15 must have the power to perform the act. Brownsville v. Loague, 129, U.S. 493,501.
What more do we want? If it is intended to go further, and put into this Constitution a
power by which the court can have the right to do whatever it thinks just and proper on a
mere application by way of mandamus, or prohibition, or injunction, then it is going a great
deal too far.
20 END QUOTE
In my view the Members of Parliament were elected for a certain duration and the
unconstitutional trickery by Mr Malcolm Turnbull to so to say disregard the legal
principles embedded in the constitution should be deplored and the courts should hold that
25 in the circumstances the 18 April 2016 failure to pass cannot permit to be used nor justify
this as a ground for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
.
Members of Parliament are elected for a certain period of time and entitled to have this
period of time and not be subjected to terrorism that if they do not do what some
30 Government of the Day desires then they will face an early election.
It is why the Governor-General must consider the interest of the general community which
Her Majesty represents in the Crown, and the Governor-General must not sway merely
because of political pressure or advancements.
The mere fact that since the February-March session the government continued to govern
35 proves that the ABCC Bill was not that important, as had it been then the Prime minister
should there and then have sought the Governor-General to issue writs for a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION combined with the Governors. The Governor-General cannot tolerate that
a Prime Minister manipulates the legal principles embedded in the constitution as to first
hands down a budget as to improve his or trying to improve his standing in a DOUBLE
40 DISSOLUTION.
If the ABCC Bill was held to b e that critical to justify a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION then
one has to ask why didn't the Minister who introduced the ABCCC Bill then resign when
the Bill failed to pass for the second time in the February-March session?
45
Clearly that in itself also underlines that the Bill never was that urgent or important,
besides the fact that the Bill was first introduced in December 2013 and then left to linger
for more than 2 years before finally again being submitted to the Senate in the February-
March 2016 session.
50

Page 10
In my view if the Governor-General were to exercise his prerogative powers then he
would betray the general community to their constitutional rights and so the embedded
legal principles in it and should himself resign.
5 .
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-I do not propose to detain the Convention with any reply, except to point out that
10 the contention of Mr. Barton in no respect applies to the matter submitted to the Convention. I agree with him
entirely in his constitutional construction of the prerogative, and, indeed, went so far out of my way as to
quote Todd to put it beyond all doubt. But what are the facts? It took ten years' fight in Victoria to get the
question settled, and we have it on the testimony of Mr. Brunker that a struggle has been waged in New
South Wales. Todd furnishes an instance in which a Ministry lost its life in South Africa in this struggle, after
15 a prolonged political conflict. Under the circumstances, it seems desirable there should be no ambiguity. We
are not dealing with common law, but with a statutory power, and desire to place these powers beyond all
dispute. What I would prefer is not the introduction of the words suggested, but such a definition of the term
"Governor-General" as would remove the ambiguity which it appears to me exists. The leader of the
Convention has told us that the words "Governor-General" or "Governor-General in Council" have
20 been used by the Drafting Committee according as the prerogative has, or has not, been practically
surrendered to Parliament. That is not to be found on the face of the measure, and it is always in these
cases open to question whether in any particular instance the prerogative has or has not been
abandoned. These doubts might be set at rest if there were a definition clause setting forth the sense in
which the term "Governor-General" is used in the Constitution.
25 Mr. BARTON.-The term "Governor-General in Council " when used means the Governor-General
in Council with the advice of the Executive.
Mr. DEAKIN.-And what does "Governor-General" mean?
Mr. BARTON.-That means the ordinary powers intrusted to the Governor-General by the Queen.
Mr. DEAKIN.-And these are to be exercised by him only on the advice of his Ministers?
30 Mr. OCONNOR.-When you only find the term "Governor-General," that means the prerogative.
Mr. DEAKIN.-On that prerogative Governors have made claims, which have received some recognition,
to exercise more power than they claim when the term "Governor-General in Council" is used. Under clause
70, any distinction which exists between different exercises of prerogative powers by our Governors are to be
preserved in the Commonwealth, and govern the relations of the Governor-General to each particular [start
35 page 2258] state according to the differing practices which may have existed. The difficulty I have mentioned
might be settled by some general provision or definition. On account of the strong feeling which exists in
some of the colonies, I propose to press this matter. I do not at all insist on the form of the amendment, but
call the attention of the Drafting Committee to the necessity of putting beyond all question the sense in which
the term "Governor-General" must be accepted. This prerogative power should be exercised, as practically all
40 other powers now are, on the advice of the Executive, or of one of its members.
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-It appears to me, with all respect, that Mr. Deakin has not quite
appreciated the meaning of the section. We do not wish to put the Governor-General here in the
position of being any less the Queen's representative than the Governors of the various colonies are at
the present time. What is the position of the Governor of each of the colonies at present? By virtue of
45 his office the Governor of each of the colonies is Commander-in Chief of the Forces. The letters patent
appointing the Governor constitute him Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, and in England it is
pointed out the Queen is Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. The only meaning of that is that the
prerogative power of commanding the army is vested in the Queen, or in the representative of the
Queen.
50 END QUOTE
As section 57 states "the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of
Representatives simultaneously"
55
It clearly is for the governor-General to decide if he holds in the interest of the general
community that in the circumstances prevailing there ought to be a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION.

Page 11
In my view, as set out in this email' the manner in which the Prime minister conducted
matters there can be no legal justification for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. And in my
view, if the governor-General nevertheless did authorise for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
then this may underline he so to say is in the pocket of the politicians rather then to
5 represent Her Majesty appropriately.
.
I may add that where allegedly Mr Bob Hawk had the Letters patent withdrawn in about
1986, then as this is critical for any Governor-General to be appointed, the Governor-
General may not even be validly appointed as Governor-General, as any powers and
10 functions assigned in the constitution to the Governor-General depends upon the person
being validly appointed as Governor-General. But that is for another time to consider.
.
I will now quote my previous PRESS RELEASE":
"20160419-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE -The con job
15 DOUBLE DISSOLUTION & the constitution"
QUOTE
ISSUE The con job DOUBLE DISSOLUTION& the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

20 No need to repeat parts of the 20160418-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
O.W.B. ISSUE -DOUBLE DISSOLUTION AT ONCE OR NOT AT ALL & the
constitution as it was only yesterday provided.
What however my concern is how Mr Malcolm Turnbull seems to have conned the
governor-General as to call Parliament back for 18 April 2016 as to purportedly being able
25 to have the Bills (Australian Building and Construction Commission Bill & Registered
Organisation Bill) placed before the Senate.
Hansard does provide the following information;
Senate_2016_04_18_4353 HANSARD (BOLDING AND RED COLOUR ADDED)
QUOTE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
30 speech:
Honourable senators and members
The standing orders of both houses of the parliament provide, when parliament is recalled to a new
session following prorogation, that I declare the cause of calling the parliament together.
The cause for which I have recalled the parliament is to enable it and, in particular, the Senate to give
35 full and timely consideration to two important parcels of industrial legislationthe bills to provide for
the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and the bill to improve
the governance and transparency of registered organisations.
These bills are critical to my government's reform agenda.
In the Governor-General's speech opening the first session of this parliament, on 12 November 2013,
40 my predecessor, Dame Quentin Bryce, said:
As part of [my Government's] commitment to boost productivity, the Australian Building and Construction
Commission will be restored to ensure that, on commercial building sites, the rule of law is respected, productivity
is improved, jobs are created and major national construction projects are kept on track.
Her Excellency went on to say:
45 The law will be changed so that registered organisations and their officials are held to the same rules and standards
as companies and their directors.
In the two years and five months since my predecessor opened the first session of this parliament with
those words, the House of Representatives has twice passed bills to restore the Australian Building and
Construction Commission. These bills have been rejected by the Senate on one occasion, and have again
50 been before the Senate since 4 February this year. Yet they have not been debated since then.
Instead, they were referred, for the third time, to a Senate committee for inquiry and report.
In the same time, the House of Representatives has three times passed legislation to give effect to the
commitment on registered organisations. This legislation has been three times rejected by the Senate.
I have, on the advice of my ministers, recalled you so that these bills can be considered again, and their
55 fate decided without further delay.

Page 12
My government regards these measures as essential for the rule of law in our workplaces.
END QUOTE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Obviously it is irrelevant what eventuated on 12 November 2013, as the bill then failed, as
5 it never passed for the second time. If the bill was that important then surely it would have
been presented to the Parliament in the next session. But never was, at least to my
understanding.
On that basis to call Parliament on an earlier time then the ordinary sessions would have
provided for being 18 April 2016 one has to ask what on earth is so suddenly important
10 when basically the bill was abandoned or could have been deemed abandoned when it
languished for about 2 years and 5 months?
It seems to me clear that if the Bill was that important then the Governor-General should
have made this known when commission Mr Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister.
I doubt he bothered to do so then as it was so to say a non-issue.
15 When then the Senate was provide with the Bills on 4 February 2015 then this session
finishing as I understand it on 3 December 2015 and was within the provisions of s57 ;
QUOTE
57 Disagreement between the Houses
20 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
25 agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But
such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of
Representatives by effluxion of time.
END QUOTE
30 It is then clear where the Parliamentarian session for the Senate finished on 3 December
2015 then it is totally irrelevant if the Senate referred it to a committee or voted it down as
in essence it fell within the terms of and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it and
therefore on 3 December 2015 it became a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION trigger.
As such what we rather in my view appear to have is Mr Malcolm Turnbull as Prime
35 Minister terrorising the Senate to give in and pass a bill or he will seek a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION, where even if the Senate had passed the Bills (technically cannot be done
until 3 months had passed since 4 February 2016) he at any time would call for a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION.
In my view his game of terrorism upon the Senate failed big time. Now he is seeking to use
40 the refused by the Senate as a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION trigger but because 18 April is
less than 3 months from 4 February 2016 then he cannot use this as a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION trigger. If therefore he seeks to rely upon the failing to pass on 3
December 2015 then why did he have the parliament recalled on 18 April 2016 if not as I
view it for his brand of terrorism to purport he may not call a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION if
45 the bills were passed but already had announced to bring the budget forwards to 3 May
2016, even so this is too late to allow the processes required within s57 of the constitution
for the Appropriation bills to be passed. Indeed, it would be for the senate to refuse
Appropriation Bills and then Mr Malcolm Turnbull be faced to call a DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION without finances available as from 1 July 2016 (I view another act of
50 terrorism) or to not being able to proceed with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION.
Here we have a Prime Minister as I understand self-described as SATAN and well he
certainly seems to me to pursue the honour associated with the common folk version of
what SATAN stands for.
Page 13
Fools those members of the political parties who support this kind of terrorism upon the
general community. They should all be turfed out if they support this nonsense of a
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION in the current circumstances.
No one can deny the right of a Prime Minister to call upon the Governor-General for a
5 DOUBLE DISSOLUTION (within constitutional provisions that is) if there are critical
Bills preventing the important of the Government acting for the Governor-General (in his
delegated powers for the Crown) to do its work. But as I did set out in my 20160418-
PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE -DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
AT ONCE OR NOT AT ALL & the constitution the minister should resign if it failed
10 again or simply ab and one the Bill altogether. We have however that Senator George
Brandis didnt resign on 3 December 2015 and as such underlines there was no importance
to the issue, let alone any urgency.
Let us not ignore the circumstances of Mr Malcolm Turnbull pursuing to get a
rearrangement of Senate voting so he could possibly prevent INDEPENDENTS to hold the
15 balance of power. Reality is that the first government after federation never had majority of
the House of Representatives, let alone both Houses of Parliament. As the framers of the
constitution made clear anyone who is an elector is entitled to become a Member of
Parliament if elected and doesnt offend s44 of the constitution. We find however that the
very representatives who are elected are the terrorist vandalising our constitution and so the
20 legal principles embedded in it, to harness elections of so to say 2 gangs calling themselves
political parties. We found this with the square above the line which was I understand
promoted as being better to vote and now Mr Malcolm Turnbull precisely argues the
opposite, anything to suit what fancy him and so to say the hell with the constitution and
the rights of the general community.
25 On 19 July 2006 I proved in the Country Court of Victoria (exercising federal jurisdiction)
that compulsory voting was unconstitutional and the court upheld both appeals. If
therefore electors were to pursue a so called VELVET REVOLUTION pursuing their
constitutional rights not to compulsory vote then one may find that neither major parties
may be found to succeed in any DOUBLE DISSOLUTION election. It means the political
30 parties may find not to be able to so to say rob the taxpayers of millions of dollars
regarding payment per primary vote and so they may all find themselves to be insolvent.
Meaning heads may fall.
As I made clear in the past that despite my July 2002 correspondence to the then General
Peter Cosgrove that it would be unconstitutional to invade another country without the
35 governor-General having published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR, he
nevertheless invaded Iraq, and to me this makes him a war criminal, having been involved
in the slaughter of innocent people who did no harm to Australians and crimes against
humanity, etc. And well it appears to me to shut him up he was made Governor-General.
And now he appears to me to be nothing more but a puppet-on-a-string for the government
40 this is precisely why the Framers of the constitution didnt want any involvement of the
appointment of a Governor-General by any Australian Government. How on earth can any
one respect a person like Peter Cosgrove, who I view is a mass murderer by
bombing/causing to be bombed innocent people in their homeland and, disregarding the
authority of the Governor-General, I wonder?
45 There can be absolutely no doubt that by his own recorded (in Hansard) statement he knew
or ought to have known that the DOUBLE DISSOLUTION trigger existed by latest on 3
December 2015. As such for him to accept to have the Parliament for 18 April 2016 where
the b ills were failing to pass on 4 February 2016 then surely he should have been able to
work out on a calendar that there was no 3 months interval since 4 February 2016. It is
50 not a minimum interval since the first time the Bill was rejected but 3 months after the last
time the bill was rejected or failed to pass. Essentially, it may be deemed, as the Framers of
Page 14
the Constitution debated, that the government may have aborted the Bill since 2013, and
that the process started all over again on 4 February 2016 and then the 3months clearly is
not provided for by 18 April 2016. As such either the DOUBLE DISSOLUTION trigger
was created on 4 February 2016 and Mr Malcolm Turnbull so to say was terrorising the
5 Senate with his threats to pursue a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION if the Bill didnt pass in the
session commencing 18 April 2016 or the failing in the session finishing on 3 December
2015 was deemed no longer relevant and hence Senator George Brandis as Attorney-
General was not have been deemed to have failed, and so it started all over again in
February 2016. My personal view is that Mr Malcolm Turnbull (without seeking to insult
10 fish and chips sales people) would do better to get a job as a Fish and Chips sales person
then being Prime Minister.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

15 (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE
Gerrit
20 Constitutionalist & Consultant

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
25 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
30 The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless
specifically otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do
is to consider the content appropriately!
35
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING
CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
END QUOTE email 22-4-2017
40 OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R.
15
QUOTE PARKER C.B.

It is plain that the policy of all countries, s are to be administered to all persons according
45 to their own opinion, and as it most effects their conscience, and laying the hand was
originally borrowed from the Pagans.
It is said by the defendants counsel, that no new oath can be imposed without an Act of
Parliament, and for this purpose several cases were cited.
My answer is: This is no new oath
50 END QUOTE
Page 15
And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R.
15
QUOTE Willis C.J.
5 There can be no evidence admitted without oath, it would be absurd for him to swear
according to the Christian oath, which he does not believe; and therefore, out of necessity,
he must be allowed to swear according to his own notion an oath
I cannot say I lay a great stress upon the authors which give am account of the Gentoo
religion, because it must depend upon their veracity and private judgment; but I found my
10 opinion upon the certificate which says, the Gentoos believe in a God as the Creator of the
universe, and that he is rewarder of those who do well, and an avenger of those who do ill
END QUOTE
And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R.
15 15
QUOTE Lee C.J.
I agree entirely with the opinions of Lord Chief Baron Parker and Lord Chief Willes; that
where it is returned by the certificate the witness is of a religion, it is sufficient; for the
foundation of all religion is the belief in god. Through difficult to have a distinct idea of an
20 infinite and incomprehensible Being as god is; yet mankind may have a relative idea of the
being of a God, as dependent creatures upon Him.An oath is a religious function that
mankind have universally established
END QUOTE
And
25 OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R.
15
QUOTE LORD Hardwickle L.C.
Suppose a Heathen, not an alien enemy, should bring an action at common law, and the
defendant should bring for an injunction, would anybody say that the plaintiff at law should
30 not be admitted to put in an answer according to his own form of an oath? If otherwise, the
injunction must be perpetual, and this would manifest denial of justice
This falls in exactly with what Lord Strair, Puffendorf, etc say, that it has been the
wisdom of all nations to administer such oaths, as are agreeable to the notion of the person
taking, and does not at all effect the conscience of the person administering, nor does it in
35 any respect adopt such religion: it is not near so much a breaking in upon the rule of law, as
admitting a person to be an evidence in his own cause
Upon the special circumstances of this case, I concur in opinion with my Lords the Judges,
that the depositions of those witnesses ought to be read as evidence in this cause, and do
not therefore order that the objection be overruled, and the depositions read.
40 END QUOTE
See also; Phipson 482, 483; Nokes 392 as to various modes to administer oaths to non-
Christians.
R. v. Moore (1892) 61 L.J.M.C. 80 (C.C.R.), Nash v Ali Khan (1892) 8 T.L.R. 444
(C.A.), R. v.Clark[1962] 1 W.L.R. 180 (C.C.A.)
45 .
NOTE; For many years, the compiler of this List of Authorities Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka,
questioned lawyers as to what Bible was being used for each witness to administer the oath.
Lawyers as yet never knew which Bible was used. When he (Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka) himself
had to make an oath, and for this presented his own Bible in the Dutch language, the trial judge
50 then allowed this.
.
Page 16
R. v Butterwasser Court of Appeal 1947 , 1K.B. 4; 63 T.L.R., 463; 111 J.P. 527; 91 S.J. 586; 32 Cr. App. R. 81;
[1947] 2 All E.R. 415
QUOTE
There is no obligation on a court to hear evidence after verdict. One small point which shows the distinction
5 between evidence after the verdict and evidence before the verdict is the different oath which use to be
administered to the witness. The form of the oath which was formerly administered to the witnesses during
the trial is well known; The evidence you shall give to the court and the jury sworn between the Sovereign
Lord, the King, and the prisoner at the Bar, shall be the truth, and so forth. After verdict, the witness who
came into the box to give evidence was sworn on what was called the voire dire, that is to say; You shall
10 true answer make to all such questions as the court shall demand of you. The court could then demand any
information it saw fit to ask for..
END QUOTE
.
Because of religious doctrines such as the ones quoted below it is important to understand that
15 what a persons personal religious beliefs may or may not be it in a sense totally irrelevant to the
oath taken. The person could say simply have a dairy of blank pages and make an oath on this.
The issue is not what is or isnt stated in the religious/non-religious book but that the oath itself
means to tell the truth.
20
It is therefore immaterial for the purpose of taking the oath if the religious doctrine such as stated
above are part of the book used for the oath. No judicial officer can be expected to read the entire
book relied upon as an oath what its content might be and as such the content of the book,
regardless of having horrendous doctrines in it cannot circumvent the purpose of the oath that
Page 17
is to tell the truth. As such, in that regard there can be no breach of s44 either (as suggested
above) because our constitution specifically states:
5 QUOTE
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
10 shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
As such the oath taken is not upon the principles/doctrine that may or may not be stated in the
15 book/document held to swear an oath upon but rather the oath itself is relevant.
The following Authority while dealing with the U.S.A likewise is applicable to the judiciary in
then Commonwealth of Australia.
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the
20 United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation
of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or
judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking
to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
25 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
QUOTE:-
..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what
Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this
30 Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which
they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by
people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those
decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.
35 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
40 borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Extract from the Nuremberg Judgment within the International Military Tribunal 1st October
45 1946 bottom of page 100
QUOTE
Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits
their defence they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes, which are shown to
have been within their general knowledge, they say they disobeyed.
50 The truth is they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the
commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to
know. This must be said: Where the facts warrant it, these men should be brought to trial
so that those among them who are guilty of these crimes should not escape punishment.
END QUOTE
55

Page 18
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Act No. 2 of 1995 as amended
QUOTE
25 Rights to make unsworn statements unaffected
This Act does not affect any right that a defendant in a criminal proceeding has under a law of a State
5 or a Territory to make an unsworn statement.
Note: The NSW Act has no equivalent provision for section 25.
END QUOTE
Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25 (3 May 2001)

10 QUOTE
9. When, in the late nineteenth century, legislatures decreed that people accused of crime should have the
capacity to testify in their own defence, it was well understood that this would bring some consequences
that were potentially unfavourable to some accused persons. This understanding is reflected in the
reasoning of the various judges in R v Kops[12], a case decided soon after the 189 New South Wales
15 legislation. There was a well-founded apprehension that, when juries became aware that an accused person
was entitled to testify, there would, in some cases, be a practical compulsion to do so. A practical
compulsion to testify frequently arises from circumstances that have nothing to do with the problem now
under consideration. It may arise from the facts of a particular case, or the nature of an accused person's
defence. It may arise because of the accidental unavailability of a witness who could give evidence of some
20 fact important to the defence case. The existence of a practical compulsion to testify is not inconsistent with
the immunities which together make up the right of silence. Giving an accused the choice of making an
unsworn statement, and prohibiting judicial comment on the exercise of such a choice, was not a
satisfactory solution. Unsworn statements were sometimes abused, especially in sexual cases, where
complainants might be publicly vilified and humiliated by statements that could not be challenged or tested
25 in cross-examination. Juries came to know that an accused could give evidence on oath, if he or she wished
to do so. Judicial silence on the topic could leave an accused person exposed to unguided reasoning that
might be far more dangerous than the reasoning legitimately available.
10. The problem that arose, when accused persons were given the capacity to testify, concerned the onus of
proof. The onus remained on the prosecution; and the standard remained proof beyond reasonable doubt.
30 But there was a change in the forensic context. Lord Mansfield's maxim that "all evidence is to be weighed
according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other
to have contradicted"[13] always applied to criminal as well as civil trials. It is exemplified by R v
Burdett[14], a case decided in 1820. However, it took on an altered significance when the power to
contradict extended to the power to contradict by sworn testimony of the accused.
35 11. To express the question as one concerning the probative significance of silence may be misleading. The
question concerns the significance of an accused's silence, either generally or on a particular subject, when
evaluating either the whole or part of the evidence. In the context of a jury trial, the question only arises if
the prosecution has established a case fit to go to the jury; that is to say, if there is evidence which, if
accepted by the jury, is capable of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If that
40 condition is satisfied, then it is the task of the jury to evaluate the evidence for the purpose of deciding
whether it proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A corresponding process of evaluation
must be undertaken by a magistrate dealing with a summary offence, or by a judge trying a case without a
jury. The silence of the accused cannot add to the evidence. Nor can it be treated as an implied admission of
guilt. But there are circumstances in which it can legitimately be used in the evaluation of evidence.
45 12. Between 1993 and 2000, trial judges, and intermediate appellate courts, bound by decisions of this Court,
looked to Weissensteiner for guidance as to the principles according to which, at a criminal trial, the silence
of an accused legitimately may be considered in evaluating some or all of the evidence in the case. In both
of the cases presently before the Court, the trial judges gave directions which were obviously based upon
the majority judgments in Weissensteiner. Courts of Criminal Appeal, bound by Weissensteiner, referred to
50 that decision in considering instructions to juries, and decisions of trial judges sitting without juries, and in
their own reasoning[15].
13. In the reasons of the majority in Weissensteiner, the focus of attention was the failure of an accused to
explain or contradict evidence. That expression, "explain or contradict", has been used repeatedly in this
context, at least since 1820, when it was used by Abbott CJ in R v Burdett[16].
55 14. In Weissensteiner, Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ said[17]:
"We have quoted rather more extensively from the cases than would otherwise be necessary in order to
show that it has never really been doubted that when a party to litigation fails to accept an opportunity to
place before the court evidence of facts within his or her knowledge which, if they exist at all, would
Page 19
explain or contradict the evidence against that party, the court may more readily accept that evidence. It is
not just because uncontradicted evidence is easier or safer to accept than contradicted evidence. That is
almost a truism. It is because doubts about the reliability of witnesses or about the inferences to be drawn
from the evidence may be more readily discounted in the absence of contradictory evidence from a party
5 who might be expected to give or call it. In particular, in a criminal trial, hypotheses consistent with
innocence may cease to be rational or reasonable in the absence of evidence to support them when that
evidence, if it exists at all, must be within the knowledge of the accused." (emphasis added)
15. It seems unlikely that, in the hypothetical case concerning the tattoo earlier considered, their Honours
would have rejected the proposition that the failure of the accused to deny that he had a tattoo on his left
10 arm could make it easier or safer to accept the evidence of the witness who testified to that effect. If they
would have done so, the language of the above passage is, to say the least, unguarded.
16. Brennan and Toohey JJ[18], after referring to the need for a jury to be properly instructed as to the onus of
proof, said:
"But the jury may draw inferences adverse to the accused more readily by considering that the accused,
15 being in a position to deny, explain or answer the evidence against him, has failed to do so." (emphasis
added)
17. In 2000, this Court decided RPS v The Queen[19]. The trial judge had directed the jury in terms which
evidently attempted to follow the majority judgments in Weissensteiner. There was an added feature in that
case. Section 20 of the Evidence Act applied. The applicant was given leave to raise, in this Court, a new
20 ground of appeal, concerning instructions given by the trial judge as to the significance which the jury
might properly attach to the appellant's failure to give evidence. This Court held that the instructions were
erroneous, and ordered a new trial. The criticisms went well beyond a conclusion that the instructions were
in some respects inconsistent with s 20. Those criticisms had potential application to trials before
magistrates, and before judges sitting without juries. They are, in my view, and with respect to those of a
25 contrary opinion, in some respects impossible to reconcile with the majority judgments in Weissensteiner.
18. The issue concerns the evaluation of evidence. The evidence against an accused may be direct, or
circumstantial, or partly direct and partly circumstantial. The problems of evaluating the evidence might
concern the reliability of particular witnesses, on the safety of drawing inferences from established facts, or
the reasonableness of competing hypotheses. In relation to such problems, the maxim stated by Lord
30 Mansfield in Blatch v Archer might be of significance. As the judgments in Weissensteiner recognised, that
significance could be diminished, and might sometimes be eliminated, by considerations which flow from
the circumstance that, at a criminal trial, there are reasons why it may be dangerous to treat an accused's
silence in the same way as one would treat the silence of a party to civil litigation. Those considerations
were taken into account in the majority judgments, and allowance was made for them. But they do not turn
35 upon the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, or between facts already the subject of
evidence and additional facts, or between facts known only to the accused and other facts.
19. As a matter of logic, a rigid distinction between failure to contradict and a failure to explain, (a distinction
which is inconsistent with almost 200 years of authority), is difficult to sustain. Nor is it logical to
distinguish between commenting upon an accused's failure to give evidence and commenting on an
40 accused's failure to give an innocent explanation of some apparently incriminating fact or circumstance.
The lack of logic is even more evident if the occasion to make a comment of the second kind only arises
when the accused is the only person who would be likely to know of the innocent explanation, if it existed.
If that is the case, then the difference between failing to explain and failing to give evidence is purely
semantic.
45 20. There is, in my view, no justification for distinguishing between a failure to give or call evidence about
some additional fact and a failure to give or call evidence about some fact already the subject of evidence.
And there is no justification for limiting the occasion for comment to facts known only to the accused. How
does a trial judge, or a jury, know whether some fact is known only to the accused? There is a large
difference between saying that, if a certain fact existed, the accused would know of it, and saying that the
50 accused is the only person who knows the fact.
END QUOTE
Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25 (3 May 2001)

QUOTE

Page 20
71. In the course of his charge to the jury, the trial judge (Nield DCJ) told the jury, in unexceptionable terms,
that an accused may give evidence on his or her trial, but is not under any obligation to do so because the
prosecution bears the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused of the offence or
offences with which the accused is charged. The judge went on, again in unexceptionable terms, to remind
5 the jury that because the appellant had decided not to give evidence, the jury
"must not think that he decided not to give evidence because he is, or believes himself to be, guilty of the
offence with which he stands charged. It would be completely wrong of you to think that. His decision not
to give evidence must not be thought by you to be an admission of guilt on his part. There may be many
reasons why an accused person may decide not to give evidence. I tell you, members of the jury, that you
10 must not speculate as to why the accused decided not to give evidence."
He went on to say, in the passage of his charge which now is impugned, that:
"However, members of the jury, when assessing the value of the evidence presented by the Crown, you are
entitled to take into account the fact that the accused did not deny or contradict evidence about matters
which were within his personal knowledge and of which he could have given direct evidence from his
15 personal knowledge. This is because, members of the jury, you may think that it is logic and common-sense
that, where only two persons are involved in some particular thing - the complainant and/or a witness and
the accused - so that there are only two persons able to give evidence about the particular thing, and where
the complainant's evidence or the witness's evidence is left undenied or uncontradicted by the accused, any
doubt which may have been cast upon that witness's evidence may be more readily discounted and that
20 witness's evidence may be more readily accepted as the truth."
72. The impugned passage of the judge's charge gave the jury instructions which cannot be reconciled with the
earlier instructions given to them. The jury were told, correctly, that the appellant bore no burden, onus or
obligation to prove anything. Yet, at the same time, by the impugned passage, the jury were invited to
conclude, from the fact that the appellant did not give evidence, that "any doubt which may have been cast
25 upon [the prosecution evidence] may be more readily discounted and [that evidence] may be more readily
accepted as the truth". That would be so if, and only if, the circumstances were such as to require response
by the appellant. Yet the judge had correctly told the jury that the law required no response from him.
END QUOTE
30 In the State of Victoria unsworn statement was abolished.
I will not now go into details as to the problems with the issue of unsworn statements safe to
say I have grave concerns that this was intended to avoid in particular rapist to avoid cross
examination on any such sworn evidence while the pendula since then went in favour of those
35 claiming to have been raped despite even one as I understand it a police sergeant claimed that 9
out of 10 cases that were investigated as rape turned out that women had consensual sex but
afterwards fearing pregnancy then claimed rape (so the husband would not discover what really
had eventuated). The end result is that those women making false allegations make it worse for
those really raped to be heard.
40
For long I have pursued that those who migrate into Australia should be given appropriate
teaching/assistance to understand that the Commonwealth of Australia has Western standards of
equality for men and women.
45 It also must be clear that in the Commonwealth of Australia a person having a certain religious
views/doctrine/association itself cannot make one of iota difference to the persons ability to hold
a governments position. Catholics are not barred from public office as this was specifically
avoided by having Section 116.
.
50 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 21
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
5 government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?
Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community is any
reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian persecution-any fear
that there will be any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole
of the advancement in English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has shown
15 a less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances, or to
maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all these
colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a
Parliament which will be at least as enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various
states; therefore, what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
20 relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or possibility, taking into
consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly going on of any of these various
communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these
communities in which we live, have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised
under a different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement; if, as this
25 progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State
becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former
days with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of
Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as
much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in respect of the
30 Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any one of the states. Now, we have
shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a
provision that might be held to be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various
religions which are believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other
races, which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any
35 civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of legislation in
regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the
making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we
have all these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its
regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of
40 humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on
humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a
dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page 1772] of their
hands the power of preventing any such practices.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill?
45 Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent anything
that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.
END QUOTE
We should also consider:

50
Page 22
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Then all crimes should be left to the Commonwealth?
Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the
Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the
5 moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you
place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should
not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all, however, to
any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to
the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and
10 having given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be
necessary for the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this
matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is
so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected-
Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.
15 END QUOTE
Crimes against the Commonwealth should only be dealt with under State courts judicial
proceedings that may or may not enforce Commonwealth legislation. As I proved on 5 August
2005 Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg that the Commonwealth averment
legislation was unconstitutional. The magistrate after hearing both parties (the Commonwealth
20 represented by a barrister) then ordered the Commonwealth to file and serve all relevant material
it sought to rely upon. When counsel for the Commonwealth raised that this could be truckloads
of ballot papers the magistrate made clear this was an issue for the Commonwealth to sort out
with the accused.
25
FOURTH SUPPLEMENT
TO THE
VICTORIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
30 OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1900.
Published by Authority
No. 2.] WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2. [1901.
QUOTE
follows :
35 IV. Every person appointed to fill the Office of Governor shall with, all due solemnity, before entering
on any of the duties of his Office, cause the Commission appointing to be Governor to be read and
published at, the seat of Government, in the presence of the Chief .Justice, or some other Judge of the
Supreme Court of the State, and of she Members of the Executive Council thereof, which being done, he
shall then and there take before them the Oath of Allegiance, in the form provided by an Act passed in the
40 Session holden in tile Thirty-first and Thirty-second years of Our Reign, intituled an Act to amend the
Law relating to Promissory Oaths ; ,and likewise the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of
Governor, and for the due and impartial administration of justice which Oaths the said Chief Justice or
Judge is hereby required to administer.
END QUOTE
45
The Office of the Governor (Victoria) as per 2-1-1901 PROCLAMATION, that was Gazetted
requires that the Governor appoints independent judges! As such, any notion that there being
no separation of powers in the states utter and sheer nonsense. A judicial officer cannot be
impartial if part of or under the control of the Government of the Day.
50
Clearly, the screenprint (below) of my computer about my coroner inbox shows that the
Government of the Day uses an agent so to say vetting submissions to the coroner and as such
the coroner court cannot be deemed a constitutional validly operating court. Despite my
Page 23
COMPLAINTS clearly nothing was done to ensure there is a separation of power and an
impartial judiciary. Neither then, as I view it, the coroner is acting within the oath of office as
such.
5
It may also be noted that Governors have Letters Patent to provide a Pardon but the Governor-
General doesnt have this power, because of the legal principle that all crimes, against
Commonwealth law must be heard in a state Court exercising federal jurisdiction. As such
10 anyone charged with offences both against the Commonwealth and State legislative provisions
can only be held legally accountable within a State court. This is also why the constitution
provides for imprisonment of those accused and/or convicted (as some might be already
convicted and serve time as well as being accused of other crimes) are to be held in State
correction facilities/prisons.
15
And as the Framers of our Constitution made clear:
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
20 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
25 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
And then there is this proviso:
Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
30 to the rules of the common law.
END QUOTE

Page 24
QUOTE
Clause 46. Any person-
(1.) Who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power, or has done any act whereby he has become a subject or citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges
5 of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(2.) Who is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, or a public defaulter; or
(3.) Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or member of the house of representatives until the
disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or
10 otherwise.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I think in line 16, after the word "expiration" the words "or remission" ought to be
inserted.
Mr. WRIXON: If my hon. friend will allow me, before the amendment is put, I wish the Convention to consider
whether it is necessary to have these words at all:
15 until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge or the expiration of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or
otherwise.
It seems to me that it would be better to leave out those words and to provide that if a man is convicted of treason,
felony, or an infamous crime, he shall be disqualified.
Mr. CLARK: For ever,?
20 Mr. MUNRO: Yes!
Mr. WRIXON: There is a great awkwardness in saying that a man is not to be chosen until he is discharged; but
in addition to that, looking to the broad principle, if a man is convicted of one of these serious crimes, I do not think
it is an unreasonable thing to disqualify him for a position of trust which he would receive as a member of
parliament. It is not an additional penalty upon him. It is done much on the same prudential motives which would
25 induce us not to nominate such a man as a trustee in our private affairs.
Mr. CLARK: It is left to your own choice!
Mr. WRIXON: Here you say, on the face of your law, that a man convicted of a serious offence is disqualified
until be gets out of prison. That, I think, is a mistake, and it would be well to omit the words I have quoted.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: You mean that it should read "who has been attainted"!
30 Mr. WRIXON: There is one case I admit which ought to be provided for. It is the case, and the very unusual
case, of ail innocent man who may have been convicted and afterwards pardoned. But I propose, after leaving
out the words I have quoted, to add a few words providing for that case.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The hon. member should say "who has been attainted," otherwise the clause would
be ambiguous!
35 Mr. WRIXON: Certainly I would say, "who has been" instead of "who is," and then I would strike out the words I
have quoted with a view to insert these words:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who shall receive a free pardon from the
Crown.
Page 25
Amendment (Mr. WRIXON) proposed:
That the word is," line 11, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "has been."
Sir GEORGE GREY: The proposed amendment raises a point of considerable [start page 656] importance.
A bill was sent home to the Imperial Parliament some time ago containing a clause in the form in which this
5 amendment would make this particular clause. On the question being argued in parliament it was decided to
add to the clause words similar to those it is now proposed to strike out. I was satisfied from the discussion
which took place upon the subject that the provision as originally drawn by me was wrong, and that all hope
of reform ought not to be cut off from a man. It is proposed, not only to give him the punishment the law has
allotted to his offence, but when he has undergone that punishment, you send him forth with a brand upon
10 him which he can never wipe out. There is less danger really in allowing a man who has undergone the
sentence the law has imposed, and which he was entitled to receive, to afterwards go free, and thus have a
chance of reformation. There is much less harm done to the community in that way than in condemning a
man to an unknown punishment. The judge in delivering his sentence would not take this other matter into
consideration, and yet the additional heavy penalty is inflicted on the man. He is literally sent out a pariah
15 among his fellow-countrymen without any hope of being restored to his former social status. By no good
conduct could be relieve himself of the result of the errors of his past life. His children would also know that
their father had been guilty of a crime of which they might not otherwise have heard, and disgrace might be
brought upon a family for one or two generations. I think it would be better to leave the clause as the British
Parliament left it.
20 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment; and I hope hon. members will carefully
consider the influence which it would be likely to have. Take the case of a man who may be convicted of what may
be technically called a felony, although it might not be more than the stealing of a 5-note. He would be at once
stamped as a man belonging to a class who could not by any subsequent good conduct establish a claim to such
recognition as is implied in the possibility of election to the federal legislature. I consider, also, that we are doing an
25 injustice to men who may perhaps have passed all their lifetime in Australia, whose antecedents are all known. If
any one of these men had made a slip in his early youth, it would at once become known. We are thus establishing
a condition of things decidedly disadvantageous to those who have passed the whole of their lifetime under the
eyes of their fellow-Australians as against a man who may come here to-morrow, and about whom no one
may know anything. In our liberality yesterday we decided to make any man who comes here from abroad,
30 and who has fulfilled the usual six months residence, enabling him to be registered as a voter in any one of the
states, eligible for election to the house of representatives.
Mr. CLARK: No; we agreed to a three years residence!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I am glad to hear it; but I thought we were defeated on the point. But take the case of a man
who has been here three years, and of whose antecedents we know nothing at all. He may have been guilty of slips
35 in his youth in England, or in some other part of the world, of which we know nothing, and our ignorance of those
slips would render him eligible for election to the house of representatives. I do not think we ought, by a deliberate
vote of this Convention, to, establish the principle that a man who has fallen in his early life-it may be under
circumstances of temptation-can under no possible circumstances redeem himself, and render himself eligible for a
position implying trust and confidence on the part of his fellow-man. I think we ought to hesitate before we revert to
40 a condition of [start page 657] things which I am sure existed only a great many years ago, if indeed it ever existed
in any portion of the British dominions. I hope the amendment will be rejected.
Mr. MUNRO: I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to lay great stress the other day upon the point
that we should raise a high standard to which our young men might aspire. I venture to say that you can have no
higher standard for our young men than the knowledge that if they are convicted of a felony they will cease to have
45 certain civil rights they formerly possessed.
Mr. CLARK: For a time!
Mr. MUNRO: Not only for a time, I think. An hon. member has said that this law belongs to olden times; but it is
the law of Victoria at the present moment.
Mr. DIBBS: That does not make it a good law!

Page 26
Mr. MUNRO: I believe it is a good law. You are about to frame a constitution applying to a very extensive area,
and you may find that a man who has been in one of the colonies convicted of murder, and who, according to our
law ought to be hanged, has, through some particular circumstances, been ordered to receive three lashings of
twenty-five lashes each and twenty-one years in irons, going to another colony where his previous character would
5 be unknown, and there associating with honest men in making laws for the federation. I say it would be a disgrace to
the federation if you were to allow such a thing to take place. We know perfectly well that the result would be not to
put upon crime the stamp that ought to be put upon it. I say that the man who has broken the law of the land to
such an extent as to be convicted of a felony ought not to be allowed to make laws for a free people, and for
that reason I strongly support the amendment of my hon. friend. It would make the clause correspond to the law
10 of Victoria at the present time. We are very proud of that law, and we should be very sorry to see it repealed.
Mr. CLARK: The last speaker seems to think that because a certain provision is law in Victoria that is quite
sufficient reason for its embodiment in the federal constitution. But all the wisdom of the world is not concentrated
in Victoria now any more than it has been concentrated there in years gone by. There has been impressed upon the
laws of the colonies from time to time the mark of their local and social origin, and we know very well that this
15 particular clause was introduced into the Victorian Constitution with regard to special circumstances in the past
history of Australia. I think it would be a great pity to preserve such a record in the constitution of the
commonwealth, and so revive what I am sure all free-born Australians would rather bury and forget. I think the
argument put forward by Sir George Grey is all-sufficient to condemn the proposed amendment. It is an
attempt by anticipation to affix to particular crimes a greater punishment than the parliament of the
20 commonwealth may, in its wisdom, affix to them. We are attempting to tie the hands of that parliament, and
to say that, in addition to whatever punishment they think sufficient to impose for these particular crimes in
the future, we will add this punishment and render it impossible for them to alter it. The hon. member talks
about this being a disgrace to the constitution. Surely it would be a disgrace to our constitution if before hand we
said that every punishment hereafter inflicted shall be intensified by something which had no relation whatever to
25 the particular circumstances under which the man committed the offence The hon. member, Mr. Wrixon, himself
admits that there ought to be exceptions to the particular rule laid down. He says we should make exceptions with
regard to men who receive free pardons. The hon. [start page 658] gentleman's experience in Victoria will enable
him to recall many cases where the Executive had good reason to believe that the convicted person was innocent, but
there was not sufficient evidence to justify the Executive in going through the form of granting a free pardon,
30 although he has been allowed to go free. Other cases have occurred where men have served their full term, after
which evidence has been discovered showing that they were innocent. The hon. member, Mr. Munro, says that
once a man is convicted he should never thereafter be allowed to associate with honest men in making laws. Does he
wish us to infer from that that we can guarantee that every man who will sit hereafter in the parliament of the
commonwealth will be absolutely free from all dishonesty?
35 Mr. MUNRO: Until he is convicted!
Mr. CLARK: Simply because he has not been convicted he is to be treated as a man superior to another man,
who, perhaps in his youth, twenty or thirty years before his election, has been convicted of some offence. The only
way to carry out that principle in its entirety would be to add the words "has been, or ought to have been, convicted,"
and to make the speaker sole judge of the moral qualities of every candidate for parliamentary honors. We should
40 then, certainly, be a model nation, and we should set a high standard before our young men such as no nation ever
erected, or would attempt to erect.
Dr. COCKBURN: I do not believe in eternal punishment; therefore I shall vote against the amendment. If a man
were wrongly convicted, and afterwards pardoned, this provision would exclude him.
An HON. MEMBER: No!
45 Dr. COCKBURN: I understood that that was intended. Take the war of-secession in America. I do not know
whether any of the seceders were convicted of treason, but they could have been, and the result, of a provision such
as this would have been the exclusion from the Congress and Senate of some of the very best men in America. Take,
again, the fathers of the United States Constitution. I think we had better leave this alone.
Mr. DIBBS: There is one thing which will easily adjust this difficulty. We must have some regard for the
50 common-sense of the people who have to give their votes for members of parliament. It is a strong ground to take,
that we should not pass a restrictive law of this character to further punish a man who has already paid the full
penalty inflicted by the law for, perhaps, a minor offence. We should simply admonish him to "turn from his
wickedness and live." We may very well trust the electors to do what is right.
Page 27
Mr. MUNRO: But the electors will not know anything about it!
Mr. DIBBS: In Victoria, of course, they would know about it. I could go to Victoria and name people who sat in
parliament and in the governments and yet who were previously convicted of treason. I could go to Queensland and
find people who have occupied seats in parliament-
5 Mr. FITZGERALD: And afterwards in the House of Commons!
Mr. DIBBS: Who were previously accused of treason.
Mr. FITZGERALD: And who were convicted!
Mr. DIBBS: I could mention instances of members of parliament there who were previously Irish rebels, who
struggled for home rule. The hon. member, Dr. Cockburn, says he does not believe in eternal punishment. I quite
10 agree with him, and I think that when a man has once paid his debts, either to individuals or the state, he
should be allowed to go free, and he should be regarded as having given full satisfaction. We must leave
everything to the intelligence of the electors, who will have the aid of the press, which, in New South Wales, is
particularly searching in [start page 659] its mode of action. No man will venture to seek to be a senator of the
commonwealth of Australia if there is any charge against his character, because he can rely upon the press
15 stirring the thing up from the bottom. Let us do what is fair and right. When a man has once paid his debts, let
us say that they shall not be cast up in his teeth. I often notice that in the criminal courts when an unfortunate
wretch has been found guilty by a jury the judge asks an officer of the court, "Has this prisoner been convicted
before?" I maintain that when once a man has served his punishment it is not right to ask such questions.
Mr. GILLIES: It is a question of habit and repute!
20 Mr. DIBBS: No, it is simply a question as to whether a man has been convicted previously, and the
unfortunate man probably pays twice over for some insignificant crime. I shall vote against the proposed
amendment, because I am prepared to rely upon the common-sense and intelligence of the electors, aided as they
will be by a powerful, and I was going to say, unscrupulous, but I prefer to say searching press, which will not allow
any man to occupy a public position without probing his character to the bottom.
25 Mr. J. FORREST: I wish to ask the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, whether the last part of this clause might
not be struck out? It has a significance which I do not like. One would imagine that we are likely to have a lot of
persons attainted with treason, or guilty of felony, as members of parliament. It seems to me that the clause would
be equally as good if the words "by a grant of discharge, or the expiration of the sentence, or a pardon, or release or
otherwise" were struck out. I quite agree with the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, that there is a good deal to be
30 said on both sides of this question, and that we do not want such people to be members of parliament. But at the
same time we do not want to shut out altogether those people who may have done wrong. I feel considerable
difficulty about it; but I think the clause should be allowed to pass if the words I have referred to are struck out.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Of course the Committee can strike out those words if it likes. But the result will be
that nobody will know exactly what the clause means. That is the only objection to it.
35 Question-That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the question-put. The Committee divided:
END QUOTE
Hansard 2-8-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
40 Clause 113.-Every state shall make provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of persons
accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, may make laws to give effect to this provision.

Page 28
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I think the words "or detention" should be inserted after "the detention."
At present the clause reads-"The state shall make-provision for the detention and punishment in its prisons of
persons accused or convicted," &c. We do not want to punish "persons accused." I beg to move-
That the words "or detention" be inserted after "detention."
5 The clause will then read-"For the detention or detention and punishment," &c.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I do not think that amendment would quite do. I could understand the
clause being amended so as to make it read-"detention or punishment of persons accused or convicted." The
object of the clause, as it stands, is to keep together the terms "accused or convicted," so, that the relation,
both of accusation and conviction, to the laws of the Commonwealth may be made clear. The clause only
10 applies to accusations or convictions in respect of laws of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, these words
"accused or convicted" are kept together just before the words "offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth." I think that if my honorable [start page 693] friend (Mr. Glynn) would alter his amendment
so as to make it read "detention or punishment," there can be no misreading of the clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I think the words should stand as they are. You have to make
15 provision for both things.
Mr. GLYNN.-Not for the punishment of accused persons.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Provision has to be made both for detention and punishment. I think the clause is
clear enough as it stands at present.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I believe that my honorable friend's (Mr. Glynn's) feeling is that, by
20 leaving the words as they are, the clause might be interpreted to enable the federal authorities to demand from
the state the detention and punishment of persons who were not convicted, but I do not apprehend that
there is the slightest difficulty on that score. I do not think any court would interpret the words to mean
the punishment of a person accused and not convicted.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-My contention is that, as the clause stands, the words are to be read
25 conjunctively in relation to the word "accused." The clause says that each state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment of persons accused or convicted. You must read the word "punishment" in relation
to "accused," as well as to "convicted." The clause should read-"For the detention, or detention and
punishment, as the case may be, of persons accused or convicted," &c.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I think the clause might be amended to get out of the difficulty
30 which has been pointed out. As it stands at present, it provides that the state shall make provision for the
detention and punishment in its prisons of persons accused or convicted. Now, evidently, the detention is for
those who have not yet been convicted, and the punishment is for those who have been convicted, and I
think that those two classes ought to be separated.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have an amendment which I think will meet the case, and enable us
35 to get on. I beg to move-
That the clause be amended by striking out the words after "detention" down to "Commonwealth," and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "in its prisons of persons accused of offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth, and the punishment of persons convicted of such offences."
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I would point out that, under the clause as now proposed to be
40 amended, a state might make provision for whipping persons convicted, but not for detaining them in
prison.
Mr. ISAACS.-Detention may be part of the punishment.
Mr. GLYNN.-But the punishment may not be detention, it may be flagellation. Are you going to allow a
state to make provision for the character of the punishment for an offence against the Commonwealth?

Page 29
Mr. Barton's amendment was agreed to.
END QUOTE
Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
5 QUOTE
[start page 1012]
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment which
has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that we make an
alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these disqualifications shall
10 operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making provision
exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power?
Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the adoption of the
constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament. I would ask hon. members also
15 to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance, the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may
change. It may be very different twenty years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony."
As Sir Samuel Griffith has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some
colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In New Zealand
felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that which have taken place in New
20 Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause
as it stands you will put it in the power of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the
qualification by making a change in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal
parliament, and that it ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the
construction of the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter.
25 The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of allegiance. The first
part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of it. For instance, it says, "Any person
who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power." The clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting
as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed. But, once a
30 man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because a thing is done. The
amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in which the matter should be put would be,
until the removal of the disqualification caused by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the
clause; but the wording of the clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to
the federal parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted.
35 The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to
limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that
should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in
the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as
these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be
40 rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were
undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony
or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a
violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one
thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the
45 commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the
case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into
parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first
subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their
interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. Persons who have taken the oath
50 of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country
for the purpose of joining in legislation.
An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted?

Page 30
The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie!
Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points!
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is
larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked
5 well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the
constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to
be supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is
quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it
10 is quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the
electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such
a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a
state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might
be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing
15 them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some
cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been
attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they
offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to
avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I
20 might say that, although it is far less objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment
that has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony.
END QUOTE
As much as I proved that Commonwealth legislation of averment cannot be forced to be

25 applied in a State Court, likewise I view that the Family Law Act 1975 that denied a federal
prisoner in a State prison to be given remission of time where other fellow State prisoners in the
same circumstances are granted remission of time, such as where due to say a prison guard strike
they are kept in their prison cell without being allowed out for exercise, etc. What we really at
least so it appears to me is having a judicial system that is of the rails and cannot manage to
30 operate within constitutional confinements. It by this is a danger to any person who might be
subjected to judicial proceedings.
I for one have a concern that the coroners findings may be nothing more then what the
Government of the Day may actually dictate as the failure to have an impartial court system
35 makes this a reasonable possibility considering what I have so far submitted.
In case this Supplement 7 is kept from you I will publish it also on the internet as well as notify
the media, to ensure it is not concealed from the public.
40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
(Our name is our motto!)


201704124-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION To Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 7

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

201704124-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION To Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supplement 7

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Page 1

Coroner Sara Hinchey J 24-4-2017

10 Ref: 20170424-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Re SUBMISSION to Coroner Sara Hinchey J-Supllement 7

Page 1 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5 I intent to attach a copy of this video to this email as part of my submission.

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20 Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

Community outrage as another child rapist is allowed back

From: Andrew Taylor <andrew.taylor2020@bigpond.com>

15 Why Muslims cannot hold Office in Australia

Here is the issueISIS is comprised of Sunni Muslims and considered by many in

Page 4 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

5 This allegiance to the Ummah, leaves Muslims unsuitable for resettlement in

This same allegiances has political ramifications. It requires Muslim political

In a recent poll done in Austria in Die Presse (2013):

1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution

20 And we also have the claims:

QUOTE email 22-4-2017

Gerrit Schorel-Hlavak O.W.B

Hello Gerrit, I just receive your below email this

40 Some friendly FOOD FOR your powerful THOUGHT!

The purported Governor General and the purported

20 ----- Original Message -----

40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

Page 9 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Page 10 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Page 11 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

20 Constitutionalist & Consultant

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

QUOTE PARKER C.B.

Page 17 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25 (3 May 2001)

Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25 (3 May 2001)

Page 19 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

30 In the State of Victoria unsworn statement was abolished.

50 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 20 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

10 Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?

Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.

We should also consider:

Mr. HIGGINS.-Then all crimes should be left to the Commonwealth?

And then there is this proviso:

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 23 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Clause 46. Any person-

(2.) Who is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, or a public defaulter; or

(3.) Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime;

Mr. CLARK: For ever,?

20 Mr. MUNRO: Yes!

Mr. CLARK: It is left to your own choice!

Mr. CLARK: No; we agreed to a three years residence!

Mr. CLARK: For a time!

Mr. DIBBS: That does not make it a good law!

Page 25 24-4-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

35 Mr. MUNRO: Until he is convicted!

An HON. MEMBER: No!