131110-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To DR R Brittain LLB Executive Officer, LMNMI DIISR-Legal Issues-Etc PDF

Page 1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dr Richard Brittain LLB Executive Officer, Legal Metrology 5 National Measurement Institute Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Bradfield Rd, West Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia PO Box 264, Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia Ph: 61-2-8467 3645 Fax: 61-2-8467 3899 Mobile: 0408 617 438 10 Email: richard.brittain@measurement.gov.au Internet: http://www.measurement.gov.au ABN 74 599 608 295 15
11-11-2013
Cc: D. Napthine MP Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au Brendan Facey Director, Infringement Management & Enforcement Services (Sheriff) Brendan.Facey@justice.vic.gov.au Ian Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria 233 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000, C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au M Hoyle, Quality and client support Coordinator Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com Mr Robert Clark MP Attorney-General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Email: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
20
25
30
COMPLAINT Ref: Measurements -ETC
Sir, I am communicating in the English language which is not my native language neither did I have any formal education in the English language nevertheless despite myself declared 35 crummy English I seek you to understand my motives and the purposes I seek to achieve as well as seek your fullest cooperation. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that our personal views and interest never should in any form or manner be to disregard the true meaning and application of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)), for that tyranny and dictatorship and oppression and indeed terrorism often are borne out by those 40 seeking to place themselves above the RULE OF LAW, being ultimately the constitution from within all and any legislation must be derived.
. Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
45
Page 1 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 2 interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
10
END QUOTE
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. END QUOTE
15
20 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. END QUOTE Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE QUOTE
25
30
35
40
45
50
.
BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~ END QUOTE HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
55 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE
.
60
Page 3 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament. END QUOTE
.
10
15
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the Constitution. END QUOTE HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE
20
Not uncommon we have judges seeking to re-interpret our constitutional framework and this spell disaster and undermine democracy and rather give rise to the tyrants/dictators to succeed in their conquest to denounce the RULE OF LAW and supplant it with their own interpretation 25 most suitable to what they desire. Yet, those very tyrants/dictators then deplore those who through lawful means seek to defend themselves as law breakers and put in place a means to ensure that lawful abiding citizens are given buckles of chance to succeed in their quest for JUSTICE. And I now call upon you to ensure that you perform as a SENTRY, as alluded upon by the 30 Framers of the Constitution.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
35
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE
40 While you may possess a law degree, which I dont, nevertheless you must interpret the constitution as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, and disregard any conflicting versions you may otherwise be lectured about. 45 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of Page 3 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
10
15
20
25
Page 4 freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly , that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted , inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE
.
30
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
35 QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE
.
40 Hence, lawyers may ordinary desire to find loopholes in legislation or otherwise twist the meaning of words used in legislation but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view one need to use no more but COMMON SENSE and plain English to understand/comprehend the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. Regrettably too often judicial officers fail to meet this criteria and hand down judgments which are undermined the constitutional rights of those appearing 45 before the courts and entitled to have their constitutional rights protected.
.
Obviously we face ordinary a barrage of legal wrangling from lawyers representing the government which with their smooth talk are willing so to say to sell out their own constitutional rights (and so that of their descendants) then to stand up and show to have a backbone to ensure 50 no infringement upon the constitution is perpetrated. While, we do have lawyers claiming to be a constitutional lawyer the truth is that this term is an oxymoron, in the same was as is a killer humanist, or a firebug fire-fighter. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) decision the Supreme Court 55 of Victoria held that the Victoria State Parliament validly could legislate as to speed detection equipment where the Commonwealth had not done so. In my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST this is utter and plain nonsense, and I will set out why below. I therefore call upon you that you report the matter to the Commonwealth of Australia as to be an unconstitutional invasion into the Commonwealth of Australia exclusive legislative powers. It is
Page 5
my view that you have a duty to report any infringements upon the Federal legislative powers which may undermine your (so the departments) ability to ensure measurements are conducted according to the exclusive Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers. I am not seeking you to become personally involved as to if the alleged February 2011 speeding 5 of 5 kilometres did or didnt eventuate, but that I view you cannot stand by to have any unauthorised speed detection equipment be used and so undermine the very purposes of the Commonwealth of Australia legislation and that of your Department. The constitution provides for: (xv) weights and measures as a Commonwealth legislative 10 power. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) the Supreme Court of Victoria held that as long as the commonwealth of Australia had not legislated upon the particular instrument then the State of Victoria can continue to do so. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that the Framers of the constitution placed beyond any doubt that the moment the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal Parliament) has passed a bill and it has 15 been enacted then it prevents the states to continue to legislate upon this subject/field.
.
A major problem is that most judicial officers/legal practitioners have the perception that s51 provides for legislative powers of the State. No such legislative powers are provided for as such. Section 51 does no more but provides legislative powers for the Commonwealth of Australia. 20 Whereas s52 provides exclusive legislative powers from time of federation, s51 however allows the States concurrent legislative powers until the Commonwealth of Australia has its own legislation in place as an Act. The moment the Commonwealth of Australia has enacted any legislation as to measurements then the states no longer can amend their own legislation that may have already existed, and neither can enact any new legislation in regard of measurements. 25 . The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE 106 Saving of Constitutions The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State. 107 Saving of Power of State Parliaments Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be. 108 Saving of State laws Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a State. 109 Inconsistency of laws When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
It should be understood that s109 is not providing any legislative powers to the States as to continue legislation but does no more but make clear that any existing State legislation at the 50 time of the Commonwealth of Australia commencing its legislation to be in place then such existing state legislation is subject to s109 provisions. It may be appropriate to point out that any colonial legislation that existed prior to federation would retain its legal force, however if the colonial legislation was amended since federation but prior to the Commonwealth commencing to apply its own legislation then the colonial legislation 55 was to be deemed as if it was a ordinary State legislation and hence s109 would then apply.
Page 6
Meaning, colonial legislation that remained as was prior to federation had a different strength and the Commonwealth of Australia seeking to legislate upon the matter was bound to provide the minimum rights for citizens they had obtained by the existing colonial laws. Much of the issue was at the time that the Framers of the Constitution debated legislative powers 5 that the states after federation wouldnt then quickly seek to amend their colonial laws to get a better position whereas the Framers of the Constitution held that the federation should honour the minimum provisions of entitlements of citizens that existed in colonial laws up to the federation. It should be clear from the quotations below that the expressions no new laws makes it 10 absolutely clear that the States cannot legislate to amend or enact new laws on a subject matter/field once the Commonwealth of Australia has put in place its own enactment.
.
While the quotations below cover some pages, I view it is essential to make clear it was not a 15 once of statement by some Delegate to convention but rather the consensus amongst Delegates was that the moment the Commonwealth of Australia had enacted legislation upon a certain subject matter/field then the states no longer could legislate in regard of the same subject matter/field. LEGISLATIVE POWERS-COMMONWEALTH-01 20 Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Of course it is necessary for the purposes of the commonwealth that it should have the control over all means of communication. Another provision to which I desire to call special attention is No. 30, which reads thus:
25
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions of this constitution.
.
30 END QUOTE
Hansard 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR:
35
40
45
The very principle of the Federal Constitution is this: that the Constitution is above both Houses of Parliament. That is the difference between it and our Houses of Parliament now. The Federal Parliament must be above both Houses of Parliament, and they must conform to it, because it is in the charter under which union takes place, and the guarantee of rights under which union takes place; and, unless you have some authority for them to interpret [start page 592] that, what guarantee have you for preserving their rights at all. It is very necessary to insert this provision in the Constitution, because if you do not do that then these questions are questions of procedure between the two Houses in which undue pressure may be brought to bear at any time on one House or other for the purpose of vetoing a law and doing injustice to the States represented in that House in the different ways in which the States are represented. As to the inconvenience, there are thirty-two different subjects of legislation here which may be dealt with by the federal authority, and in regard to any one of these if an error is made which takes the law outside the authority which is given to the federal power it is invalid-absolutely void-no matter what inconvenience may follow. Mr. ISAACS: That is not a rule of procedure; that is jurisdiction. END QUOTE HANSARD 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: If it appeared on the face of the Bill, we have to assume first that the Government would bring in a Bill which on the face of it was illegal, and that there would not be one pure soul in the House to call attention to it, and that even the immaculate Senate would not contain an angelic mind that would do its duty to the Constitution. Heaven help the Constitution if it is to be run on these lines! The Page 6 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
5
.
Page 7 Upper House will not allow its rights to be violated if they are put in the Constitution, and the object of the amendment is simply to prevent an unfortunate accident, which would happen over and over again in Acts of Parliament, from rendering an Act after it has received the Royal assent, and which might be, perhaps, the deliberate policy of the country, accepted by vast majorities in both Houses, invalid. I would not have proposed this amendment in face of the serious debate it has provoked. I proposed, if no member of the Convention has a previous amendment: END QUOTE Hansard 19-4--1897 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill, there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. The Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses. With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation of Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage: It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts, that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed. Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say. Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary. Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear. END QUOTE Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GLYNN ( South Australia )[12.35]: I have not the Federal Council Bill before me; but I believe that that bill contained the words "sailing between the ports of the colonies." The bill was sent home with those words in it; but her Majesty's advisers at home deliberately changed the wording of the measure so as to give the Council wider jurisdiction. There was a limitation in the bill which does not appear in the act, and the Imperial authorities must have made this alteration for some specific purpose . They could not have accidentally inserted the words "port of clearance, or ." There is no danger of conflict between the laws of the commonwealth and the Imperial law. The moment a new act is passed in England which conflicts with any legislation passed by the commonwealth, that act will to the extent of the difference abrogate the legislation under the constitution of Australia . END QUOTE HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the ambit of those specified. The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, Page 7 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
55
Page 8 order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had better not be left out of the bill altogether. The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting Committee. Amendment negatived. END QUOTE
.
10
15 Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE
.
20
25

QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.
35

QUOTE Mr. REID The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law. END QUOTE
.
45
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
50 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should Page 8 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
55
60
Page 9 say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100. Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
10
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. END QUOTE QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state. Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the confines of Victoria at all. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans? Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should not have power to devise such laws. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power? Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it? Page 9 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Page 10 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and immigration, its legislation displaces the state law. END QUOTE
5 HANSARD 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

(Note Clause 52 &53 referred to are now Section 51 &52 of the constitution) QUOTE That the words "The affairs of," first line sub-section (1),be omitted. [start page 253]
10
Mr. BARTON.-I have no objection to taking it that way. Mr. DEAKIN.-I think it must now be perfectly clear that what we desire is, not to deprive, the Federal Parliament of its paramount power in every respect in regard to any dealings with the races referred to, but to leave to the several states, until the Federal Parliament legislates upon the alien question, the operation of all legislation already passed, and the the right to legislate in the future until the Federal Parliament thinks fit to supersede it by specific legislation. For instance, the Federal Parliament might well pass a general law applying to these races without making any reference to their employment as miners or hawkers, and any state legislation in regard to those occupations which might be in existence would continue, or now legislation regarding them might be introduced. When the Federal Parliament chooses to make regulations in regard to the employment of aliens as hawkers and miners, the state legislation will cease to have effect. The honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) said-Hand to the Federal Parliament all powers connected with aliens, and allow them to give back certain powers to the state." We say-Instead of taking these powers from the states and giving them back again, let us leave them with the states until the Federal Parliament chooses to assume them." Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I do not think it makes any substantial difference whether you put this provision in clause 52, or leave it where it is. The Federal Parliament has first to say what races it is: necessary to make regulations about. Mr. ISAACS.-That is giving a rather limited meaning to the words " deemed necessary." Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power will have arisen. The only matter for the committee to consider is as to the expediency of leaving the provision here or of putting; it into clause 52. Wherever it is, it will, upon the passing of the Constitution, operate as an intimation to the Federal Parliament that this is a matter of national import, upon which they are expected to legislate. Once within the Commonwealth citizens should be able to go freely from one state to another; there should be no lines of differentiation between states. If races are admitted into one state, and are not free to go into another, the inconveniences of administration, especially on the borders, will be very great. It has been thought well that there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in respect to the citizens of Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate clause giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal Parliament should legislate upon this matter. In my opinion, whether you put the provision into clause 52, or leave it where it is, its substantial legislative effect will be the same. As to the meaning of the words, "the affairs of the people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary," in my opinion it is the Federal Parliament who must deem it necessary. Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate for the whole general community?
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply to the general community. [start page 254] Sir JOHN DOWNER.-My argument is that deemed necessary means deemed necessary by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Assuming that I am right, I ask to whom does this clause extend? The persons named by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. When the Commonwealth Parliament deals with this subject, its legislation will over-ride any local legislation, no matter whether you put the provision in clause 52 or leave it in clause 53. What the representatives from Victoria want is exactly what is provided Page 10 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
55
Page 11 here, but the provision is put where it is for the purposes of extra emphasis, and to indicate to the Federal Parliament that they are expected to make over-riding and general legislation in regard to this vital question. I think honorable members are, almost without exception, strongly of opinion that there should be federal legislation upon this matter, and I therefore believe that it will meet the wishes of honorable members if we leave the provision exactly where it is, as a means of hurrying up the Federal Parliament and causing it to legislate in this matter as soon as possible. END QUOTE Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in contradiction of federal legislation? Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point. Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of concurrent legislation that power does not cease? Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52, thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates for all. END QUOTE Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15
20
25
30
35 QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word "exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph saysBut this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed by the Parliament. It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255] stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
40
45
50
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately on the establishment of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
55 QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the Page 11 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 12 Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power will have arisen.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
10
Mr. HIGGINS.-Clause 84 was intended to mean that the power referred to should not be exclusive until uniform duties of customs had been imposed. Mr. BARRON.-There is no exclusive power for a period of two years, but by a proviso the power becomes exclusive at the end of that time. Where there is no such proviso the exclusive power must operate, at any rate, from the date of the election of the Federal Legislature.
15
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in contradiction of federal legislation? Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point. Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of concurrent legislation that power does not cease? END QUOTE Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
20
25
30
With this liberal stand firmly taken by the ministers, the religious objection was speedily over-ruled. And now, sir, it will be observed that in the Constitution of the United States of America there was not any such recognition in the preamble, and it is proposed that there shall be in our preamble. I am very sorry that those who first propounded this addition to the preamble did not tell the people with what object it was to be put in. They, no doubt, were perfectly fair and honest in their object, but they had read more than most people as to what had happened in the state of America, and I think, in all frankness, the people ought to have been told that there was a direct object and purpose in view. Now, in 1892 there was a decision in regard to the New York difficulty which has put all the fat in the fire. It was this: There was a law passed by the state of New York, which was to the effect that there should be no labour imported from abroad for the purpose of employers in the state of New York. There happened to be a clergyman imported from England to fill the pulpit of a church in Broadway, in New York, and it was urged that this clergyman was a labourer imported from abroad. Mr. SYMON.-A labourer from the vine-yard. Mr. HIGGINS.-The vineyard idea strikes the honorable member forcibly, no doubt, after his experience as a vigneron. The result was that the question as to whether this clergyman had not been imported against the laws of the state of New York was brought up before several courts and gravely discussed. One court held that it was a breach of the Act to import the clergy-man from abroad, but the Supreme Court of the states, when the question was referred to it, held that it was not a breach of the law, and they also went on to say that Congress never meant to interfere with the importation of clergy-men, because that was a Christian country. And for the purposes of establishing that it was a Christian country all through the states of America they went into elaborate charters and documents to show that from the first it had been a Christian country, and of course they were able to show that most of the states had been founded by denominations for the sake of their own adherents. But what happened in consequence of that decision? There has been a recrudescence of religious strifes throughout the United States, which I could never have believed would have happened-a lifting of banners of those who wish to impose, for instance, a compulsory sabbath all through, in, and upon every state, and a lifting of the banner of those who oppose that movement. Mr. FRASER.-Which side are you on? Page 12 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
35
40
45
50
55
10
15
20
25
Page 13 Mr. HIGGINS.-I think the honorable member's interjection is beside the question, and wholly unfair. This matter may be put upon broad grounds, and not upon the matter of differences between us. I think that our feeling is that we ought not to do anything under this Constitution which will alienate from giving an earnest "Aye" to this Bill a large body of honest and good people, if we can avoid that without at the same time inflicting irreparable harm on the Constitution. I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of the Federal Parliament are limited under the Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no power to do anything except what is expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary . But, although that was the case when this clause was put in, if there is inserted in the preamble an express recognition of the Almighty in [start page 656] the Constitution, the position which met the draftsmen of this clause will no longer be applicable, inasmuch as there will be in the preamble of this Constitution a declaration of a religious character, from which, as experience shows, a number of corollaries will be deduced, and upon which attempts will be made, from time to time, to pass legislation of a character which I do not think we intend to give the Federal Commonwealth power to pass. I think that, whatever is done in this matter, if anything is done, ought to be done by the states. I do not think we ought to interfere with the right of the states to do anything they choose, if they think fit to do anything; but I do think that in establishing this Federal Commonwealth we ought to take care to reassure people that there will be no interference with them. There is, I understand, in America, a large body of people called Seventh Day Adventists. There are a few here. Rightly or wrongly, it is not for us to judge, they hold a theory that they are not obliged to keep Sunday. They cannot afford two holidays in the week, and, therefore, they keep Saturday. Well, these people in America are excited beyond bounds at the attempts which have been made since 1892 to establish a compulsory Sunday in the United States. Here, these people are few in number, I believe-I do not know much about them-but I understand that they are exceedingly troubled over the fact that through putting the words in question in the preamble there may be an attempt to enforce the observance of Sunday upon them, whereas they observe Saturday. END QUOTE Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me. But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council would ever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise under this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that power upon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. END QUOTE Australasian Convention) (Re what is now Section 96 of the Constitution) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it. Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were? Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power implied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and definite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one consolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided in this Constitution.
45 Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
50
55
Page 14 Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term " public services of the Commonwealth." Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such a case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside these limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were carried giving monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought would not be attained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such power either expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the future of the [start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given. QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE
.
10
15 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20
25
30
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE
35
I may underline that there are ample of further quotations but I view the above ought to be sufficient to enable any person with a bit of common sense to understand that the State of 40 Victoria is offending the Commonwealth of Australia exclusive legislative powers. Where then the State of Victoria does so and has set in place a system of tyranny/dictatorship to enforce its unconstitutional legislation, regarding speed measurements equipment, then I view the Commonwealth of Australia, and so yourself, also have a duty and obligation to take appropriate action to stop this. 45 . I understand that Premier Napthine is on record that the infringement notices are a way of taxation. In my view this also underlines that the purpose of the legislation is rather raising taxation rather than for the good of Victoria. Moreover, as was reported that some 2,000 N.S.W. motorist had been issued with infringement notices but later were found to have been wrongly 50 issued because somehow the wrong state motor registration details had been used. This to me underlines how innocent people are subjected to tyranny/dictatorship to be forced to pay regardless of their innocence to any wrongdoing. THIS HAS TO STOP! One of the issues I also raised in my past correspondence to the Victorian State Government and 55 its departments was that the Commonwealth has provided for the Magistrates Court of Victoria to b e provided with federal jurisdiction. However, the amendment alluded to below undermines this in violation of it not being an open court hearing where clearly to exercise federal jurisdiction this is required.
Page 15
When then I was in February 2011 provided with an Infringement Notice I immediately challenged the jurisdiction of any court. This also as where legislation is ULTRA VIRES then it is now law and no court therefore can deal with unconstitutional law. 5 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. END QUOTE
.
10
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws. END QUOTE
20
25
30
As the Infringement Court is part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria but operates as a computer, without any formal OPEN COURT hearings, then clearly this offend the Chapter III of the constitution federal court requirement. As I raised the constitution it became by this a federal issue.
Moreover, the Framers of the Constitution while accepting that the States could regulate their own legal processes they did however imply the legal principle that the judiciary cannot hand down a judicial determination unless and until both parties have been heard. This, while the Infringement court operates not on a sworn filed affidavit, but merely what the informant may 35 allege (Without formal notification to the accused of what actually was filed in the Infringement Court) the accused not at all being provided with any legal opportunity to place his/her case to challenge the allegations. Hence, I view the Magistrates Court of Victoria is defying the federal jurisdiction minimum legal requirements and cannot be deemed for this to be a competent court of law exercising federal jurisdiction. Moreover, when I challenged the Registrars decision to 40 issue orders against me and sought a review, the Registrar denied this. This, even so the High Court of Australia in Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991) made clear that as Registrars decision must always be reviewable by a judge. As such what we have is a Registrar not under supervision of a judge which offends also the provisions applicable to a Chapter III of the constitution court. 45 Another issue I raised was that the Sheriffs Office is no more but a glorified Debt Collector rather than a Sheriff Office for enforcing Court orders, etc. The difference is that the Sheriff in federal courts is there not to pursue the interest of s Government but is for the security and protection of the Court itself. 50 Any person who is fleeing from pursuing police officers can seek sanction in any court building as this is off limit to any police enforcement, so that the Chief Justice of that court then determines of the person seeking sanctuary shall be provided with this safety and security or the police should be invited to take the person from the courts precinct. The same as with anyone following into the Parliament, where again ordinary police powers cannot be exercised without 55 the permission of the presiding Speaker/President.
Page 16
Therefore the separation of powers is and must be maintained that a sheriff either acts for the Court itself or operates as a debt collector for the Government, but cannot do both, as there would be a conflict of interest, and the sheriff then could violate the precinct of the court/Parliament for political reasons. 5 What we now have also is that as was reported the police are pulling over drivers for no other purpose but that the sheriff then can check out if there are any warrants outstanding, again, this is unlawful and not permissible in law, as the police while having powers to stop a motorist for road safety issues, such as licence check and drug and alcohol testing it is not within that powers to use it for the sake of the sheriff to check peoples records, 10 What we therefore have is a gigantic escalation of abuses of powers by the Victorian State Government in aid of its unconstitutional legislation regarding speed detection devises, and hence, I call upon you and the Federal Government to STOP THIS ROT and to make clear that the States have no legislative powers as to weight and measurements. 15 QUOTE Infringements Act 2006 Act No. 12/2006 The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows: PART 1PRELIMINARY 20 1. Purposes The main purposes of this Act are (a) to provide for a new framework for the issuing and serving of infringement notices for offences and the enforcement of infringement notices; (b) to amend the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, 25 the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. ENDNOTES
END QUOTE QUOTE
Minister's second reading speech 30 Legislative Assembly: 16 November 2005 Legislative Council: 28 March 2006 The long title for the Bill for this Act was "to provide for a new Framework for the issuing and serving of infringement notices for offences and the enforcement of infringement notices, to amend the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and for other purposes."
END QUOTE QUOTE David Woods
35
40
To Davidkilife@gmx.com Nov 7 at 9:58 AM Please find the reply to Speed measurement. From: Brittain, Richard [mailto:Richard.Brittain@measurement.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2009 1:01 PM To: Jim Maragos. Page 16 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
45
Page 17 Cc: Trade Subject: RE: Question re speed measuring devices?? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Dear Mr Maragos, I refer to your e-mail of 3 May 2009 to our Trade mailbox and confirm as follows:
Speed measuring devices are not exempt from the provisions of the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). There is no exemption certificate attesting to the above.
I trust that this information satisfies your enquiry Yours sincerely
10
Richard Brittain Dr Richard Brittain LLB Executive Officer, Legal Metrology National Measurement Institute Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
15
________________________________________ National Measurement Institute Bradfield Rd, West Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia PO Box 264, Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia Ph: 61-2-8467 3645 Fax: 61-2-8467 3899 Mobile: 0408 617 438 Email: richard.brittain@measurement.gov.au Internet: http://www.measurement.gov.au ABN 74 599 608 295
20
25
From: Jim Maragos Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:33 PM To: Trade Subject: Question??
30
To Whom it may concern I would like to know if the speed measuring devises used buy the police are exempt from the National Measurement Act 1960 (cth) And if so why and were can I get the exemption certificate That proves that fact. As far as I can see the only exemptions are
35
a) A quantity of reticulated electricity, reticulated gas or reticulated water b) Charges relating to telephone calls c) The fare payable for use of a taxi d) The charge for the hire of a motor vehicle e) Tyre pressures
40
f) The expiration of the time for parking a motor vehicle Your response would be appreciated Regards jim END QUOTE
45
I received a correspondence purporting to be from the Sheriff's Office that the registration of my vehicle 1989 Mitsubishi will be prevented from renewal, in regard of Obligation Number 1106575301.
Page 18
The picture above clearly indicates in the letterhead that the INFRINGEMENT COURT is under the emblem of the Magistrates Court of Victoria
5 Below, it is shown that the appeal to "revoke/cancel" the order was refused by the Infringement Registrar. As shown below I applied for a "review" which in regard of a Chapter III of the (federal) constitution court must be an "open court" with a review before a judge, not a registrar. 10 Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759
QUOTE The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that " No man can be a judge in his own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision. END QUOTE Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24 Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17. Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17. Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723 Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458
15
20
Page 19
This notice clearly purports that the INFRINGEMENT COURT is part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria.
5 Above shows that there was 1 point applied against my driver license, and for what? After all, I requested a "review" of a registrars decision and was entitled to have this heard before a magistrate, yet instead I am given a penalty without conviction. meaning the police are the once issuing the Infringement Notice and who are applying the 1 point penalty! Judge, Jury and Executor mentality! 10 QUOTE 130721- John Wilson
The Constitutional Matter raised in these proceedings is a re-visit to the Boilermakers Case, Citation: (1956) 94 CLR 254. ... R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia. The High Court Of Australia ruled that a statutory body that is not a court has no judicial authority and cannot act judicially . An example being the State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) of New South Wales Australia cannot impose any judgement or penalty or fines, which can only be done by a court. The SDRO is not a court, instead is a private corporation conducting business/commerce (a statutory body). So the cancelling of car licenses and registrations at the direction of the SDRO to the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales, Australia (another private corporation conducting business/commerce) is unlawful. END QUOTE Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: QUOTE "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which she/he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence ." END QUOTE
15
20
25
Clearly the above outline that this is not eventuating.

.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Page 20 QUOTE Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. END QUOTE QUOTE HANSARD 8-02-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. KINGSTON.-What does the honorable and learned member mean by the term " due process of law"? Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection to every citizen.
10
15
Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already. Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way? Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State.
20
25 END QUOTE
QUOTE Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be heard. Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal. END QUOTE
30
35
And these legal principles are embedded into the constitution. 40

QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE Page 20 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
45 QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
50
55
Page 21 QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
Hence, without going into numerous other issues and details and quotations I urge you to ensure that the Commonwealth of Australia acts appropriately and guarantees that any speed measuring device used against citizens are only those approved by the Commonwealth of Australia within its statutory provisions and the Commonwealth of Australia will oppose any State to act in blatant violation of this. Safe to say that any retrospective legislation (by the Commonwealth as to try to validate the state unconstitutional legislation) would be doomed, as the Framers of the Constitution made this clear also as one cannot make a person a criminal by retrospective legislation. As you may be aware that when you witness the commission of a crime and fails to act as may in the circumstances be appropriate then in law you can be deemed to be a accessory after the fact. In my view yourself, and so the Commonwealth of Australia, would be guilty of allowing this kind of terrorism/tyranny/dictatorship to continue in violation to the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional legislative powers, etc. As I referred to above one could be deemed an accessory after fact if one fails to act appropriately in the circumstances. Likewise one could be deemed to conspire with others, when being aware of a criminal conduct and permitting this to continue without taking appropriate steps as might be possible to stop such criminal conduct.
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy. END QUOTE
30
The issue of road law enforcement cannot be denied to a State Government provided this is accomplished within our constitutional framework and not despite of it. The kind of terrorism now perpetrated upon only motorist within the State of Victoria but even those who didnt at all enter the State of Victoria (such as the N.S.W. motorist wrongly fined) is because so far the 35 Commonwealth of Australia failed to take appropriate action to stop this unconstitutional use of powers by the Victorian State of Victoria, its Parliament, the Government and its law enforcement entities. Hence, We, the People, are aggrieved and seek without undue delay urgent appropriate action! 40
RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC AFFECTED TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS
45
50
WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;( JUDGE3 STEPHEN J.) QUOTE As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at p361 , speaking there of subdelegated legislation, "there is one quite general question . . . of supreme importance to the continuance of the rule of law under the British constitution, namely, the right of the public affected to know what that law is". The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the "working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to operate it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of course, that at any rate its legal advisers have access to it at any moment, as of right". END QUOTE Page 21 10-11-2013 Re: COMPLAINT - etc 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Page 22
It cannot be held that We, the People, know what the law is when judges such as in Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) are staking a claim without the judgment setting out upon what factual constitutional basis this was upon which the issues were considered and determined. What we therefore have is a judicial officer making his own 5 contemporary views known as a reason of judgment, with a total disregard to present his reasons upon factual evidence. This to me cannot be deemed a ruling by law but I view rather constitutes TREASON against the people. 10
QUOTE Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE QUOTE Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE
15
Having judges appointed upon government recommendation in the states clearly present problem alluded to by the Framers of the Constitution. And, when as a Professional Advocate I represented (during 2012 and 2013) James (a solicitor and barrister for 22 years) in the matter of 20 Legal Service Commissioner (Vic) v Harold James Johnson I then pointed out in my submission that a then sitting (but to retire) judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria made known that the courts were known as Business Unit 19 by the State Government and it had access to the courts computers. Clearly this totally defies the separation of powers required for the Supreme Court of Victoria and other state courts to be permitted to exercise federal jurisdiction 25 as a Chapter III of the constitution court. In Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) did not, at least the reason of judgment doesnt refer to this, deal with the issue that the Infringement Court, as part of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, violated the legal principle of not being an open court, etc. In my view the Commonwealth cannot tolerate that federal jurisdiction exercised by any state court is in defiance of the legal principles embedded in 30 the constitution. Neither can it tolerate that an Infringement Court under a registrar denies the right of a review before a judge. As Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 (11 November 2010) was clearly a case involving the interpretation of the constitution, then the Infringement Court could not have invoked jurisdiction where it is not a Chapter III court or operating as such. 35
QUOTE Hansard 13-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).The House of Lords does not do that. If that power is exercised, as I suppose it will be, in Australia, as it is in the United States, the danger will be still greater, because Parliament, by altering the number of Judges, and by making stipulations as to their appointment, could so mould the character of the High Court as to get from it a decision conformable with its own views as against the views of the state Parliament. END QUOTE
40 As set out above, I have been punished not by a proper court in session but by Government regulation with 1 point against my licence, without my constitutional enshrined legal principle rights, to be entitled to first place my case before the court before any adjudication by a competent court of jurisdiction. I AM AGRIEVED and the Commonwealth of Australia cannot stand by to have its constitutional legislative powers being interfered with by the State of 45 Victoria to cause such harm. I urge you to ensure appropriate action is taken against this rot!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues and or details and neither has anything been stated in order of priority.
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
50
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.
Our name is our motto!)

131110-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To DR R Brittain LLB Executive Officer, LMNMI DIISR-Legal Issues-Etc PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

131110-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To DR R Brittain LLB Executive Officer, LMNMI DIISR-Legal Issues-Etc PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Page 1

COMPLAINT Ref: Measurements -ETC

15 Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

30 Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

40 Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

5 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

15 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

5 HANSARD 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

15 HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

I trust that this information satisfies your enquiry Yours sincerely

Clearly the above outline that this is not eventuating.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

And these legal principles are embedded into the constitution. 40

45 QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC AFFECTED TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

Вам также может понравиться