John Brumby States Sovereignty Etc

.
John Brumby, Premier of Victoria 1-1-2010

john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
5 .
Cc: Robert Hulls, Attorney-General rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
10 Re dropping references to the Queen - etc
.
Kevin,
My wife was telling me, yesterday, that slowly she was getting in a habit of certain
conduct and while she is aware that I kept referring to it really didn’t get to realisation to her
15 until I was in hospital. It’s is when you are in a position to loose it all or have lost it that then
realisation sets in.
.
The same is with most politicians they are often arrogant, ignorant, etc, and it is only when they
have been defeated or something has gone terribly wrong that they are at times, not always,
20 realising they could have more then likely avoided the harm.
.
Before going into details regarding the State of Victoria I shall briefly refer also to federal
issues to give you a better understanding what I am on about.
.
25 The Commonwealth of Australia is a POLITICAL UNION but whenever judges of the High
Court of Australia manipulate or otherwise abuse/misuse their judicial powers in favour of the
Commonwealth then really little hope have electors to have a redress of this because the major
political parties rather then The People are so to say in the driving seat.
Besides this, politicians have been over their growing years been indoctrinated with lots of
30 nonsense and so by they time they end up in the parliament they take things for granted because
after all this is how the way they understand things are always being done. Even when then
someone like myself point out that it is being done wrong the politicians will be basically deaf to
this because their mindset is that they know how it is applicable. And this is very dangerous for
any democracy.
35 We then have the Constitutional Policy Unit that to me appears to be more like a mouthpiece
for the federal government and with real little understanding/comprehension what the
constitution really stands for.
.
I urge you to consider to provide that an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN is under the control
40 of the Governor of the State of Victoria (as I view should be likewise in other states and in the
Commonwealth), as a non political body which then provide information to anyone, regardless of
being a politician, lawyer/judge or elector equally without political bias.
As such it wouldn’t matter what the standing and position of the person is in today’s society he
will get information as like any other person without it being politically tainted.
45 .
Lets use an example albeit this relates to a federal politicians the same is applicable to Victorian
politicians;:
1-1-2010 Page 1
PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website
Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com
Sunday Herald Sun December 27, 2009page 34 article headed, “$5 m in learning curves” by
Linda Silmalis and James Campbell;
QUOTE
Retiring Kooyong MP Petro Georgiou spent $23,060 visiting France, Belgium,
5 Netherlands, Italy and the UK and discussed “the need to endorse nudity and
homosexuality” for potential Dutch migrants
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my first question is under what constitutional authority is this
10 kind of funding authorised?
.
After all, constitutionally neither “nudity” or “homosexuality” are constitutional legislative
powers for the Commonwealth!
It should be understood that the House of Representatives and the Senate are houses of
15 parliament that are essentially operating independently from the government but are under the
provisions of the constitution as being the parliament.
.
Both Houses are entitled to provide for House rules such as commonly referred to as Orders but
those Rules must be within the powers of what is permissible by the constitution.
20 As such, the House of Representatives and/or the Senate cannot for example authorise an
excursion as to the preservation of locations where the religious Dead Sea rolls were found
because Section 116 of the constitution specifically prohibits this kind of conduct.
Therefore any so to say holiday entertainment under any claims of religious or other kind of
preservative studies would be outside the powers of either House of Parliament to authorise.
25 Sure I accept that any member of parliament can go on a trip and research this or garbage dumps
(as occurred in the past) at huge cost but as long as this is a private affair and they foot the bills
themselves then I have no issue with it but we can never accept junket trips to be authorised by
Parliament as this is beyond the parliaments constitutional powers.
.
30 What should be understood also is that a Member of Parliament (other then those employed as a
Minister of State within s64 of the constitution) ordinary is deemed to be unemployed, unless
having a job in the private sector, and within the constitution is only permitted an
‘ALLOWANCE” NOT a “SALARY” and as such, as the Framers of the constitution made clear
they are entitled to a reasonable compensation called ALLOWANCE to compensate for the loss
35 of earnings they have from their ordinary day job by attending to the Federal parliament for the
few weeks they are doing so.
It means that Members of Parliament not having a private sector job (or a government job)
should apply for the dole when they are not actually sitting in attendance in the Federal
parliament. While Members of Parliament may claim that besides the say 46 days a year of being
40 actually in the federal parliament they are attending to their constituents, reality is that this is
their own business and has got absolutely nothing to do with their ALLOWANCE and hence
they should do so out of their own pocket. Likewise the cost of their overhead expenses really are
no issue to the taxpayers to fund.
Often when there is some upheaval within a political party, such as the Liberals had recently, we
45 the taxpayers are duped to pay for all their cost, including mobile phone cost, even so it has
absolutely nothing to do with the taxpayers. It is simply outside the structure of federation!
.
Neither is there such a thing as a “SHADOW” ministry as simply either a Member of Parliament
is appointed as a Minister or he is not! Hence, forget about the nonsense of a SHADOW Minister
50 because it is a political party set up nothing to do with the electors.
.
1-1-2010 Page 2
The problem is that the independence of either House of Parliament to conduct its business has
been abused and misused over time that we now see a person such as Mr Petro Georgiou
reportedly going on a trip nothing to do with being a Member of Parliament!
Not even a Minister of State would have had any justification for such trip at taxpayers cost
5 because again it is not within the commonwealth’s constitutional legislative powers!
.
But let make it clear it isn’t just Mr Petro Georgiou doing this. The same article for example also
reveals further;
QUOTE
10 Queensland Liberal Peter Lindsay spend $15,619, visiting 11 countries in 41 days,
including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mauritius and the UK.
Part of his conclusions were that Hezbollah was not a radical group and Mr Mugabe
was “forward thinking” in his approach to tackling the country’s HIV/AIDS
epidemic.
15 END QUOTE
.
Perhaps I missed the disintrigation of the POLITICAL UNION called Commonwealth of
Australia as I understood that “external affairs” is within the powers of the Commonwealth of
Australia?
20 .
We also had the following:
QUOTE
Mallee MP John Forrest took a challenging 18-day trip to northern Thailand to visit
hill tribes in the Mekong River region – and came home via the Bangkok Hilton.
25 The purpose of the $17,562.03 trip was to learn about the children of the golden
Triangle organisations.
In a candid report, Mr Forrest described how he was kept up by barking dogs and
how he ate at an internet café. And he observed that chickens in villages were
“scrawny due to poor diet”.
30 Mr Forrest also appeared to think Thailand’s currency was named after Homer
Simpson’s son, spelling the baht as “Bart”.
END QUOTE
.
I invite you to explain to me how this trip related to any specific parliamentarian position Mr
35 Forrest was holding in the Parliament?
.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT; For the record as I recall I stood in the past against Mr Forrest
as an INDEPENDENT in Mallee!
.
40 What appears to be is that not just the Federal but as above quotations also indicated Queensland
politicians seems to be abusing and misusing taxpayers monies on junkets. And there are
likewise ample of politicians doing so of these and other parliaments.
.
Prior to the 2007 federal election I recall you announcing you were a “FEDERALIST” well i
45 like to see that you show to be a man of your word and you will do what ought to have been done
a long time ago and to ensure that any Member of Parliament going on a trip not associated with
a specific parliamentarian position repays the entire bill! Indeed none ever again fraudulently
charge the cost to the taxpayers (Consolidate Revenue Funds).
.
50 In my view it would be cheaper to hold a ROYAL COMMISSION into the unconstitutional
murderous invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq so at least we can hold legally accountable those
who acted against the constitutional provisions. Again, politicians may assume that the cabinet
can authorise an invasion but reality is that constitutionally cabinet can do no more but
1-1-2010 Page 3
RECOMMEND for the Governor-General, through the minister of Defence, that the governor-
General publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR, exercising his prerogative powers
of the Crown, and unless and until this has occurred there is no power for the Commonwealth to
undertake any act of war.
5 Afghanistan and Iraq were so to say friendly nations and within the Commonwealth Crimes Act
those authorising the armed invasions or otherwise participating in it and/or supporting it acted
without lawful excuse as long as the governor-General had not first published in the Gazette a
DECLARATION OF WAR against the specific countries.
.
10 My 2 December 2007 request Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, about the ROYAL COMMISSION
into the unconstitutional armed invasion still has not appropriately been attended to!
It seems that what we may rather have Members of Parliament perhaps obsessed with matters
such as nudity and homosexuality and other nonsense rather then to be concerned about the real
issues that are relevant to the Commonwealth.
15 .
While the federal government is still going on, so it is reported, about the ETS in the meantime
the Victorian government had allowed increased to about 20% of charges because of
environmental issues.
.
20 Lets consider then the following:
.
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
25 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.
30 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is
35 no doubt that it will be exercised.
QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
40 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
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
45 QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
And
50 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.
1-1-2010 Page 4
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
5 start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that
if we leave the clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted
which will safeguard the states in the carrying out of any of their state laws over
which the states are to be supreme even under federation.
END QUOTE
10 .
Now which part of these statement do you not understand that I can even so I never had English
as my native language and never had any formal education in the English language?
.
Lets try to explain it very clearly to you.
15 Either the State or the federal Parliament has the legislative powers but not both!
.
So, where in the constitution is the legislative powers for an ETS that Kevin Rudd, Prime
Minister, claim there is and the States fail to understand there to exist?
Again, it is either the States or the Commonwealth but not both!
20 .
While I understand more then a hundred people attended on their junket trip to Copenhagen,
surely if you couldn’t even manage to sort this out before attending to Copenhagen then I view
there is a gross misconception as to what is required to get any legislation appropriately enacted.
.
25 Isn’t the first issue, even before drafting any Bill, to sort out who has legislative powers?
.
Obviously, it is clear that neither you, the Commonwealth’s Constitutional Policy Unit and
others have any perception what is constitutionally permissible. And again that is why an
INDEPENDENT “OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN” is needed under the Governor of each
30 state as well as under the Governor-General as to stop this and other rot.
.
It was reported that Robb Hulls, attorney-General for the State of Victoria has decided to now no
longer institute proceedings in the name of the Monarch but in the name of the director of public
Prosecutions.
35 .
Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less if there is a monarchy or a republic but while the State of
Victoria pursues to enforce the RULE OF LAW against any alleged offender then let this be
done in an appropriate manner. After all, the last thing you would want is to go along with the
republican notions of the Attorney-General only in time to discover that all and any convictions
40 obtained in the name of the DPP are NULL AND VOID.
.
First of all the State of Victoria was created as a colony from what was at the time still a part of
the colony of N.S.W. but by federation within s.106 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
45 QUOTE
Chapter V—The States
106 Saving of Constitutions
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject
to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
50 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.
END QUOTE
1-1-2010 Page 5
.
Again
QUOTE
subject to this Constitution
5 END QUOTE
.
Now there is where I come in as a CONSTITUTIONALIST. On 19 July 2006 after a 5-yyear
epic legal battle I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth, and so unchallenged, in the
County Court of Victoria on all constitutional matters I had submitted, including those which
10 were in the 2002 NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
.
The Attorney-General of the State of Victoria also was served with a copy but neither did oppose
any of the constitutional issues I raised in the litigation.
.
15 For the record he neither, and so none of the other States or the Commonwealth appealed the 19
July 2006 ruling by the County Court of Victoria.
.
On 6 July 2006, nearly two weeks before the court’s decision I published a book titled:
.
20 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
.
This book was published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and
25 other legal issues, and was filed as evidence in the case at hand before the County Court of
Victoria which in “CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC” included all
copies of documentation then before the court.
.
What this case proved for example was that regardless that the commonwealth legislated in s245
30 of the Commonwealth electoral Act 1918 that registration and voting is compulsory the Court
accepted my submissions that in fact the Framers of the constitution specifically had refused to
authorise the commonwealth to legislate in that regard. As such, the section 245 is ULTRA
VIRES and without legal force.
.
35 Likewise so did I already in previous proceedings defeat the commonwealth in that
“AVERMENT” is unconstitutional and as such the fact that the Commonwealth had legislated to
allow AVERMENT was irrelevant.
.
Likewise I exposed, and it was again not opposed even by the Attorney-General of Victoria, that
40 “citizenship” is a State legislative power nothing to do with the Commonwealth and in fact the
Framers of the Constitution had specifically denied the Commonwealth to define/declare
“CITIZENSHIP”.
.
See also my book published way back in 2003 about this;
45 .
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
.
50 .
It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British
subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the
Imperial authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That
1-1-2010 Page 6
is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” We have a High Court of
Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth
by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of
5 Australia committed TREASON?
.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
10 Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned
member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is
asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not,
of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
15 the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of
the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
20 diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading
inducement for joining the Union.
END QUOTE
25 .
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded
the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has
30 enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one
citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.
That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be
recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
35 END QUOTE
.
In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey
(at p 926 of HLC (p 725 of ER)):
QUOTE
40 (T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons
natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.
END QUOTE
.
45 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
50 legislatures, existing under the constitution.
1-1-2010 Page 7
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting
5 privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They
are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so.
From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are
proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several
colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures,
10 and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of
their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the
states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them
that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently
the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each
15 legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst
within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and
unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority.
END QUOTE
20 .
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE GREY: I beg to propose that the following resolution stand as resolution
No. 5:-
25 The inhabitants of each of the states of federated Australasia ought to be allowed to

choose, and if they see fit from time to time to vary, the form of state government under
which they desire to live. Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution
which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the
majority of voters, their own form of state constitution.
30 Question proposed.
Sir HENRY PARKES: I wish to raise a point of order upon this resolution, and I do
it with the utmost respect to the distinguished gentleman who has moved it. My point
of order is that the resolution goes beyond our instructions. We have been sent here
for one object and one object only, and that is, to prepare a scheme for the framing of
35 a federal constitution. Anything outside of these prescribed words cannot be dealt
with under the commission in virtue of which we have come here.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
40 Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details
of the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this
Convention to decide that the power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the
several states. At present the legislatures of the various colonies can only be altered
with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that shall remain? When
45 we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal
legislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their
constitutions at will or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by
the hon. member, Sir George Grey, is decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the
power to lay down a general rule, without touching the details of any individual
1-1-2010 Page 8
constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their own
constitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states.
END QUOTE
.
5 Again (RE Section 123);
QUOTE
Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478]
enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own
form of state constitution.
10 END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitutional Convention
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
But let us take first his position in regard to the Commonwealth. Under the power
15 which you have given to the Federal Parliament to make laws regulating immigration
and aliens, you embrace every possible set of circumstances under which any person
may enter the bounds of the Commonwealth. As you have power to prevent any
person from entering any part of the Commonwealth, you have also the power to
prevent any person from becoming a member of the Commonwealth community.
20 There is no territorial entity coincident with the Commonwealth. Every part of the
Commonwealth territory is part of the state, and it is only by virtue of his citizenship
of a state that any person within the bounds of the Commonwealth will have any
political rights under the Constitution. Of course, when I speak of a state, I include
also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state, which, of course, stands in
25 exactly the same position.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
30 There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many
of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries
cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
.
35 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a
case which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony
from acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under
40 adverse conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that
state. The state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or
anything else-and I am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the
particular administration of its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the
exercise of its power and the administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there
45 is to be a clause introduced, to have the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one
modification, omitting the words-"and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen."
That would re-open the whole question as to whether an alien, not admitted to the
citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions with regard to immigration, is
prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to enter it under certain
50 conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of the
Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should confine the
1-1-2010 Page 9
operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens of the
Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment suggested
by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
END QUOTE
5 .
QUOTE Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded
the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has
enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one
10 citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship.
That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again.
We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be
recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
END QUOTE
15 .
The following shows the usage of Australian citizen, citizen of the Commonwealth, dual
citizenship, etc. making clear that the constitutional term “Australian citizenship” has no such
meaning of “nationality” and neither can be converted to this as to allow, so to say, the
Commonwealth of Australia to unconstitutionally steal the legislative powers of the States to
20 define/declare citizenship.
13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
Re; dual citizenship
25 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
30 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizenship
40 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizens
08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
45 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
Re; federal citizenship
1-1-2010 Page 10
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
5 Re; dual citizenship
10 10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
.
Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
15 allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with
respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is
a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie;
20 allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a
badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is
freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it
25 can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in
which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously
enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth,
and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the
inherent rights of man.
30
And
These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain
would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that
35 she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the
Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in
support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
40 And
The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it
now exists in the general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right
of emigration, is no where surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that,
what has not been given, ought not to be assumed. It may be said, however, that such
45 a power is necessary to the government, and that it is implied in the authority to
regulate the business of naturalization. In considering these positions, it must be
admitted, that although an individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a
right to seduce others from their country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively,
take away a citizen, commit an act, which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal
50 police; and a conspiracy or combination, to leave a country, might, likewise be
properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an infraction of the natural right of
individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he has no right to will for
1-1-2010 Page 11
others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of another to his
purpose, by fear, by fraud, or by persuasion.
And
But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend
5 upon the municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the
principles of general jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a
variety of objects; but the Supreme Court is only a branch of that power; and
depends on Congress for what portion it shall have, except in the cases of
ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the constitution. The power of declaring
10 whether a citizen shall be entitled in any form to expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to
prescribe the form, is not given to the Supreme Court; and, yet, that power will be
exercised by the court, if they shall decide against the expatriation of Captain Talbot.
Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-motive, right of a free citizen,
is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it would be treason to
15 migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext of expatriation.
1 Dall. Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say the writers
on the law of nature and nations) to desert a country labouring under great
calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations of an oath of office, withdraws to
elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his citizenship. It is not,
20 however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the
law itself must, also, cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as
liable by local, as by natural, allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He
must take care of his family, he must pay his debts, wherever he resides; and there is
25 no security in restraining emigration, as to those objects, since, with respect to them,
withdrawing is as effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of
expatriation, that other nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation
has a right to interfere in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship,
to be conferred, or released, are matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could
30 affect [p*145] the question, every time that a fresh power entered into a war, a new
restraint would be imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral country;
which, considering the constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a
perpetual controul. But the true distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral
country may still exercise the right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to
35 say, "the act of joining our enemies, flagrante bello, shall not be a valid act of
expatriation." By this construction, the duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred rights of the
citizen, the law of nations, and the faith of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in
distinct and separate courses. To pursue the subject one step further: A man cannot owe
allegiance to two sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man
40 has a right to expatriate, and another nation has a right and disposition to adopt him,
it is a compact between the two parties, consummated by the oath of allegiance. A
man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his last will, as to his estate; it
supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect, the party, in one
case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases, as good
45 Christians and good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if not
to a better, life and country. An act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various
kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one, when the state permits her citizens
to depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the most conclusive that
the case admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even after
50 the emigrant is released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have
entered no other country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not
being a citizen of Virginia, he cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he
be called a citizen of the world; a human balloon, detached and buoyant in the
1-1-2010 Page 12
political atmosphere, gazed at wherever he passes, and settled wherever he touches?
But, on the other hand, the act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is
unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and
creating the right of the adopted, country. Sir William Blackstone, therefore, considers it
5 as the strongest, though an ineffectual, effort to emancipate a British subject from his
natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of France declares it expressly to be a
criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates, when the naturalization law of the
United States provides, that the whole ceremony of initiation shall be performed in the
American courts; and if it is here considered as the proof of adoption, shall it not be
10 considered, also, as the test of expatriation? If America [p*146] makes citizens in that way,
shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege of the same process? In short, to admit
that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of allegiance to America, is, virtually, to
admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath of allegiance to France. After this
discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for the facts in this case, it is insisted,
15 1st, That Talbot was a naturalized citizen of the French Republic at the time of receiving a
commission to command the privateer, and of capturing the Magdalena. He left this
country with the design to emigrate; and the act of expatriation must be presumed to be
regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the municipality of Point a
Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe. 2d, That Redick was
20 also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased the vessel, and
received a commission to employ her as a privateer.
And
Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
25 Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship,
where as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.

.
The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
30 made clear that “naturalization” powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
“CITIZENSHIP” legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
Commonwealth of Australia.
Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to

35 define/declare “CITIZENSHIP” but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that.
40 Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
as a British subject.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
45 are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
1-1-2010 Page 13
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
5 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
10 see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various
quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the
effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have
15 considered this matter very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most
difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is
in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition of
citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other
things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized
20 citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been found that that
excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That
shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed a proposed
clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me
surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned
25 members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any
definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable to
implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be
better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
30 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the
35 citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
come here.
40 Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
of the Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
45 Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
Commonwealth?
And
1-1-2010 Page 14
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
5 Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
10 lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
15 take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
And
Mr. OCONNOR.-I have said that I do not see that such a trust in the Federal Parliament
would be effective. I sympathize with the honorable member's view, but I think it will be
carried out by some kind of definition of citizenship, and I was pointing out the only
20 aspect in which it appears to me it might be desirable to have some such definition, and
that is, you are creating new rights to citizens of the Commonwealth as citizens of the
Commonwealth in regard to your courts. You establish courts for the Commonwealth, and
every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to the use of those courts.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Who is he?
25 And
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I shall have to oppose Dr. Quick's amendment, although
I would really go further than he intends. His object is to have a common citizenship, and
he proposes to define that in a proposed new clause, 120A, which reads as follows:-
All persons resident within the Commonwealth, being natural-born or naturalized subjects
30 of the Queen, and not under any disability imposed by the Parliament, shall be citizens of
the Commonwealth;
and he now wants to give power to Parliament to vary that subsequently.
Mr. ISAACS.-It is not clause 120A that he is proposing now.

Mr. HIGGINS.-It is his amendment in clause 52-to insert "Commonwealth citizenship"
35 as a new sub-section.
Mr. GLYNN.-I am quite aware of that, but what I want to understand is whether Dr.
Quick will propose the insertion of clause 120A, and also put it in the power of the
Parliament to vary the Commonwealth citizenship under clause 52? That is the point about
which I am doubtful. But I desire to point out that Dr. Quick is not going as far as they
40 have gone in America or Germany. There is a common citizenship both of the
Commonwealth and of the states in America. Citizenship of the Commonwealth carries
with it citizenship of the states, and the Constitution provides that immunities and
privileges enjoyed by the citizens of a particular state shall be equally shared, when in that
state, by the citizens of all the other states. Now, the German Constitution makes a
45 declaration that there must be a common citizenship. It does not state that the Parliament
of Germany will have the power of providing for a citizenship of the empire, but that there
1-1-2010 Page 15
must be a common citizenship of the whole empire, and that the privileges which are given
in one part of the empire would apply right through the whole empire. That is to say, there
is a Commonwealth citizenship and a state citizenship running the one with the other-a
perfect equality of rights. All that is done in Germany is that Article 3 of the Imperial
5 Constitution declares that there shall be a common citizenship for all Germany, and that
the rights of the individual citizens of any state must be extended to the individual citizens
of any other state as long as they come within the jurisdiction of the former state; but the
German Constitution also provides that Parliament-and here is the distinction-may define
what the conditions of that common citizenship are to be. The Constitution declares that
10 there must be a common citizenship, but it leaves the determination of the particular terms
of that citizenship to the Parliament. That is different from the proposal of Dr. Quick.
And
[start page 1761]
Mr. KINGSTON.-It was in the Bill.

15 Mr. OCONNOR.-There is no portion of the Bill which gives any right of citizenship, or
points out what citizenship is.
Mr. HIGGINS.-The word "citizen " occurred in clause 110, although it is now struck
out.
And
20 Mr. OCONNOR.-The words in clause 110 do not define any right of citizenship; they
prevent certain restrictions upon it. I would point out to Dr. Quick that he is proposing to
give a power to regulate or describe rights of citizenship, when we really do not know at
present what is meant by a citizen. I confess I do not know what the honorable and learned
member means by that term. Does he mean only the political rights which you give to
25 every inhabitant of a state who is qualified to vote, or does he go beyond that, as the
American decisions have gone, and describe every person who is under the protection of
your laws as a citizen? The citizens, the persons under the protection of your laws, are not
the only persons who are entitled to take part in your elections or in your government, but
every person who resides in your community has a right to the protection of your laws and
30 to the protection of the laws of all the states, and has the right of access to your courts. If
you are going to define citizenship for the purpose of giving these rights, you must say
clearly what you mean by citizenship. You leave it to the Federal Parliament to say what
citizenship is; and I think there is a great deal in what Mr. Glynn says, that we must not
hand over to the Federal Parliament the power to cut down the rights the inhabitants of
35 these states have at the present time. If we do not know what you mean by citizenship-
Mr. ISAACS.-Commonwealth citizenship.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. But if we do not know what you mean by citizenship-

whether you mean to restrict it to political rights or to the right of protection under your
laws, which every person, whether a naturalized subject or a person for the time being
40 resident in one of these communities, possesses-we may drive the Federal Parliament into
some difficulty, in which it is not at all unlikely that some cutting down of what we believe
to be the rights of citizenship may take place. I would point out that under the Bill the
power of dealing with aliens and immigration gives an abundant right to the
Commonwealth to protect itself, and, of course, the right of defining citizenship will
45 have to be exercised with due regard to any laws which might be made regarding the
position of aliens. I would ask my honorable friend (Dr. Quick) to say if he has considered
1-1-2010 Page 16
how far he means the Federal Parliament to go in the definition of citizenship, and what he
means by citizenship? Because, unless we have a clear idea of that, it seems to me that we
are handing over to the Federal Parliament something which is vague in the extreme, and
which might be misused.
5 And
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
10 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
15 I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce
this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one
which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is
20 much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
25 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

30 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
35 and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
And
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have
40 explained, then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing
with the lives, liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth,
independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression
"Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I
have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a
45 definition in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this
Constitution. He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of
dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very
narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of
1-1-2010 Page 17
extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject
living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his
heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to
legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that legislation we give the qualification
5 of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and substance of
political liberty, and we have defined that. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament
power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having
defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play
10 ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of
the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That
15 is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into
legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
20 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states. We
25 do not propose to interfere with them in this Constitution. We leave that amongst the
reserved powers of the states, and, therefore, having done nothing to make insecure the
rights of property and the rights of liberty which at present exist in the states, and having
also said that the political rights exercisable in the states are to be exercisable also in the
Commonwealth in the election of representatives, we have done all that is necessary. It is
30 better to rest there than to plunge ourselves into what may be a sea of difficulties. We do
not know to what extent a power like this may be exercised, and we should pause before we
take any such leap in the dark.
Again;
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
35 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
40 our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
Also
The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property and personal
liberty is still left with the states.
45 As was made clear by Mr quick;
1-1-2010 Page 18
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens
5 of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
Therefore, the Constitution never provided any constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of
Australia to legislate as to “CITIZENSHIP”.
As the Commonwealth of Australia was provided with powers within Subsection 51(xix) of the
constitution to “naturalize” “aliens” to become “British nationals” and the Nationalization Act
10 was enacted after Federation then clearly the powers to naturalize an alien to become a British
national is not diminish. In 1948, the Federal parliament then replaced the Naturalization Act
with the Australian citizenship Act 1948 by this “STEALING” the legislative powers of the
States states in regard of “citizenship” by purporting that there was an “Australian citizenship” as
an Australian nationality.
15 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning

not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
.
20 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
25 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
30 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
35 guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us
have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work
can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for
them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
40 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
45 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
50 provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as
1-1-2010 Page 19
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
5 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,
10 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.
15 END QUOTE
.
If the Commonwealth of Australia never had any constitutional powers to declare/define
citizenship then what is the meaning of the Certificate of Australian Citizenship realty?
20 If Australian citizenship is purported to be Australian nationality then this must fail as Subsection
51(xix) provided constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to “naturalize” aliens
to become British nationals! Without any Section 128 referendum this cannot be changed to
some purported “Australian nationality”.
We either have a Constitution or not! We use it as was intended by the framers of the
25 Constitution, modified as have been provided for by the successful referendums or we have no
constitution at all and no federation exist!
In view that the British parliament declared Australians to be “foreigners” can this then alter the
application of the constitution, one may ask?
30
Constitutional law cannot be amended by mere implication but must be amended by appropriate
legislation. In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section
128 exclude the British Parliament to amend the constitution as it can only be amended by the
consent of the people, as expressed by a Section 128 referendum. Hence, regardless if the British
35 parliament did or didn’t pass legislation to declare Australians “foreigners” the only way to
resolve the matter was and remains to have the Constitution amended to allow the
Commonwealth of Australia to “naturalize” aliens to become Australian nationals.
The following part of transcript indicates how the High Court of Australia itself is confusing
40 “citizenship” with “nationality”.
.
What we have now is that the federal constitution is now supreme over the State constitutions as
the inclusion of the wording “subject to this Constitution” means that State constitutions are
not equal to or above the federal constitution but subject to it. It also means that all principles
45 embedded in the federal constitution are also applicable in the state constitutions.
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
50 we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
.
1-1-2010 Page 20
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible
government
END QUOTE
5 And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this
Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any
way that guarantee.
10 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been
made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but
15 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
And
20 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.
25 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains
30 unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
35 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
40 And
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about
to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about
to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
45 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
50 And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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
1-1-2010 Page 21
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
5 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
10 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.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to
refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but,
indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and
20 state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman
admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all
time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those
questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on
national lines, and by a national referendum.
25 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a
30 judge under a Federal Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for
from Parliament or Government.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the
interpreter of the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the
35 same sense as a federal judge is, the same circumstances remain in part; but where you
will have a tribunal constantly charged with the maintenance of the Constitution against the
inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by Parliament, then it is essential that
no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected weakness-for we do not
know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether consciously or
40 not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which
might be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
.
45 QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education
question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the
Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because
we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy
50 for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no
one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
1-1-2010 Page 22
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the
Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies
may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the
people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal
5 has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a
few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
.
10 QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of
parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we
embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is
no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but
15 constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of
amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of
parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent
body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again,
instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate
20 bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all
that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,
instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful
judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the
sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
25 QUOTE
.
It should be obvious that if the States could legislate and amend its constitution as it pleased then
they could simply erode the federal compact. The States clearly cannot do so and once any
legislative powers is referred to the commonwealth, that is constitutionally appropriately, then
30 that is the end of the legislative power for the State and no longer can be retrieved.
.
While the 1986 children legislation by the states purports that the Governor or a State can still
change this, reality is that it cannot. It only underlines that not a single State Parliament has
sufficient advice as to relevant constitutional matters. More over while s51(xxxvii) provides for
35 the reference of legislative powers again this is only valid provided a State referendum approved
for the State to do so. Section 123 of the federal constitution is clearly for this also.
.
Commonwealth Powers (Family Law---Children) Act 1986(Vic).doc
QUOTE
40 s. 4
The Governor in Council may, at any time, by proclamation published in the
Government Gazette, fix a day as the day on which the reference under this Act shall
terminate.
END QUOTE
45 .
What an utter nonsense as the Framers of the constitution made clear:
.
QUOTE
50 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
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
1-1-2010 Page 23
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
5 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 any-and 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
10 settled. I should 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. It appears to me that this sub-section, which is certainly one of the very valuable
sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does, means by which the colonies may by
common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the Constitution, needs to
15 be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered clear is
whether, when we have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of providing
for the necessary revenue that may be required or for imposing the necessary charges under
such legislation.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?
20 Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of
this clause, as I have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial
power-casts a certain suspicion on that reading of it, although, of course, the provision
when embodied in this Act would have a different effect. Still, why not make it clear
whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed federal legislation for
25 some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any necessary
raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the
legislation?
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one
well worthy of the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to
30 which he has drawn attention could be obviated by some such provision as that which he
suggested. But this matter has struck me also from another point of view, and it seems
to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending the Federal
Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various states
for their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the
35 Federal Parliament, and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a
federal law, and cannot afterwards be repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is
one position, and in that case, of course, the reference once made [start page 218] is a
reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it becomes an
amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
40 Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the other hand,
if that be not so, and the states can, after making such reference, repeal such
reference, what is the result? You have a constant state of change-no guarantee for
continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead to a great deal of
confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision
45 is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such
amendments being carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the

Federal Constitution.
END QUOTE
1-1-2010 Page 24
Again
QUOTE
is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it becomes an
amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
5 Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states.
END QUOTE
.
As far as I understand it Rob Hulls has been the Attorney-General since about 1999 and by now
still doesn’t seem to understand/comprehend how a s51(xxxvii) reference of legislative powers
10 applies?
.
The same with the 1999 nonsense of purportedly making unconstitutional Federal Court orders to
be Supreme Court of Victoria orders. What an utter and sheer nonsense. But that has been
extensively canvassed in my published books and no need to repeat the same.
15 .
So, forget about trying to manufacture something of a retrospective reference of legislative
powers of citizenship to the Commonwealth because it cannot be done.
.
What we have however is that at federation all citizens of the colonies were clearly as Barton
20 stated:
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that
we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
25 END QUOTE
.
Children born in the State of Victoria were therefore born within the real of the Monarch and are
as such “subjects of the Queen” by birth.
.
30 The Commonwealth never was given any legislative powers to declare/define nationality of any
child born in the Commonwealth of Australia as that remained to rest with the states. Hence, any
child born, even those of refugees, within the Commonwealth of Australia automatically were
“subjects of the British Crown”.
.
35 While the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill purported that Heather Hill was a foreigner not
entitled to sit in the Senate the problem with this is that not only are all Australians born or
naturalised like Heather hill subjects of the British Crown, and so automatically equally
disqualified from sitting in federal parliament, but there is another complication as we have for
example Rob Hulls having been born in the State of Victoria, I assume, as a Subject of the
40 British Crown by birth.
QUOTE Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report
4. And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it
hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at
the time of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because
45 they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the [7-Coke-27
b] uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crown
to which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God
of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by
several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural
50 obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural
born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,
cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by
1-1-2010 Page 25
judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a
matter ex post facto.
END QUOTE
.
5 Again
QUOTE
cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by
judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a
matter ex post facto.
10 END QUOTE
.
As such, Rob Hulls being a subject of the British Crown by birth cannot be both a subject of the
British Crown and at the same time being a Subject of the Queen of Australia where the High
Court of Australia determined that a subject of the British Crown is a alien/foreigner within s44
15 of the federal constitution. And this applies to all members of State and Federal parliaments.
.
Laws are enacted in the name of the monarch and as such can only be enforced in the name of
the monarch. I am not aware that the Queen handed over this prerogative power to Rob Hulls and
neither that Rob Hulls has the legal standing to take away for them Monarch her prerogative
20 powers.
.
Seems to me that Rob Hulls still suffers of an identity crisis that he doesn’t know, so to say if he
is the head or the tail of the ass. Well, it might in reality not make a difference as it still remains
to be part of the ass (donkey) but lets be realistic about this. Rob Hulls cannot vote as a citizen of
25 the State of Victoria as a subject of the British Crown while voting as a subject of the Queen of
Australia in federal elections.
.
What we have is that some States now have gone over to the more republican version of charging
people in the name of the DPP while others retain in the name of the Crown. This also shows that
30 none really understand that it is either one or the other for every state.
.
If the charges were laid in the name of the queen of Australia then each and every charge was
without constitutional foundation and so ULTRA VIRES and without legal force because the
British crown ultimately is what is the only power that constitutionally give royal assent. I mean,
35 the Queen of The Netherlands could very well give royal assent to Victorian laws but it would be
as much a nullity as would be in regard of the fictional Queen of Australia.
.
QUOTE
40 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
45 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended
there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going
to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is
expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
50 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
1-1-2010 Page 26
Not being a lawyer and as such not subjected to having been brainwashed either I as an
“unlettered” person understands from this that the Commonwealth of Australia is a
“POLITICAL UNION” like the EUROPEAN UNION. The sovereign states remains to be the
main trust of the commonwealth and neither the States Parliaments or the Commonwealth
5 Parliament can amend the Constitution as only the People can do so via State and/or Federal
referendums.
.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear;
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of
10 the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
Constitution,
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able
to understand.
END QUOTE
20 .
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs)
is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672]
25 one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the
provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material
they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be
incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least
30 degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these
provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable;
and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be
very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no
word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in
35 time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and
an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which
we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now
contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every
clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
40 END QUOTE
.
To understand what constitutional powers are standing for one must first of all be a
CONSTITUTIONALIST and not some lawyer who read the constitution to what he wants to
read rather then how it is applicable.
45 .
The issue is that either Rob Hulls is a subject of the British Crown and he must then adhere to his
allegiance to the British Crown or he is a subject of the non-existing Queen of Australia as no
such country exist as it is a POLITICAL UNION (Australia is a continent not even including
Tasmania, and Tasmania was never part of the continent of Australia for Letters patent
50 concerned as the Queen had issues different letters Patent, and Tasmania only is part of the
POLITICAL UNION titled Commonwealth of Australia).
.
1-1-2010 Page 27
It means Senator Bob Brown, albeit he may not even realise this, never was an Australia because
he was a Tasmanian and is deemed an Australian only being part of the Commonwealth of
Australia
.
5 Therefore, he votes as an Tasmanian in State elections under the British Crown and as an
australian elector for purpose of Federal elections.
.
Therefore, if the Commonwealth purportedly became an independent identity then this would not
affect his State citizenship because Australian citizenship (a political status) is derived from
10 being a State citizen. .
As such only because of being a State citizen can one become a Australian citizen of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
.
This is a right automatically obtained when becoming a State citizen.
15 .
If therefore one were to rely upon the ruling of the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill then
Bob Brown being born as a Tasmania citizen under the British Crown could not then at the same
time serve as a Senator under the purported Queen of Australia. He so to say is his own enemy,
voting for one queen in State environment and another queen in federal environment.
20 .
More over, how could State premiers in CoAG (Council of Australian Governments) deal with
the commonwealth because the States or so it is made out to be some still are under the British
Crown while others are under the purported Queen of Australia?
.
25 What an utter and sheer nonsense to refer legislative powers under one queen to a fictional queen
where now the subject like Heather Hill is ousted but somehow legislation enacted by one can be
applied under another?
.
I could quite frankly not care less if Rob Hulls think he is still under the Queen of Sheeba, as
30 long as he isn’t going to get his nonsense upon the people of Victoria.
.
I do not want that people convicted of very serious crimes later can walk freely from prisons
because Rob Hulls so to say had his bullshit arti8stery as to change things.
.
35 It should be clear that laws enacted under a certain monarch can only be enforced in the name of
that monarch! And if Rob Hulls or for that matter anyone else doesn’t understand/comprehend
this then they should vacate their positions in parliaments and certainly not be allowed to be
Attorney-General.
.
40 What we now have is that the Commonwealth purportedly legislated as to “citizenship” even so
no referendum was ever held to approve any amendment of the constitution for this, and again
even a s51(xxxvii) referral of legislative powers is not constitutionally valid unless the relevant
state had it approved by State referendum.
.
45 So, what we have is that constitutionally the States still hold the legislative powers as to
define/declare CITIZENSHIP.
.
The problem is however that in the purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 this refers to
Australian citizenship of the Commonwealth, which constitutionally doesn’t exist.
50 More over the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is not an amendment of the Victorian
Constitution as existed at time of federation as having been an amendment approved by the
majority of electors of the State of Victoria and as such in that regard NULL AND VOID.
.
1-1-2010 Page 28
As I successfully, and so unchallenged by any of the State Attorney-Generals as well not by the
Commonwealth lawyers submitted that not a single lawyer was validly appointed and this means
that judges neither are validly appointed, etc.
.
5 There is obviously a lot more to this and hence my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series
on certain constitutional and other legal issues, but it seems to me that the State of Victoria did
better not to pursue with any nonsense to drop the title of the queen but first get some sound legal
advise or better from a competent constitutionalist what really is applicable because like it or not
the nonsense of the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill is precisely that and has no legal value
10 as the High Court of Australia has no constitutional powers to amend the constitution or its
application!
.
Many Australians are financially struggling to make ends meet and you and other politicians are
spending as if there is no tomorrow and this is because the whole check and balances system the
15 Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution simply doesn’t operate.
.
One day people will get so fed up with it all that there will be a VELVET REVOLUTION so
the people will reclaim their constitutional and other legal rights and more over strip back from
politicians disposed off all the monies they squandered or otherwise misused/abused.
20 .
Make today being the start of a new year, a new decade and the beginning of a properly
operating federation as is permissible within the constitutional framework. Stop the rot referred
to above and numerous other issues I have raised in past correspondences, and keep in mind that
if you desire to become a TYRANT, DICTATOR or otherwise then it is open to you to pursue
25 this through a s.123 referendum to seek an amendment to the State Constitution to provide you
this kind of position lawfully, but in the meantime do honour the provisions and limitations of
the constitution and show you indeed find it a privilege to serve us the people!
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

30
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
1-1-2010 Page 29

John Brumby States Sovereignty Etc

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

John Brumby States Sovereignty Etc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

.

John Brumby, Premier of Victoria 1-1-2010

25 The inhabitants of each of the states of federated Australasia ought to be allowed to

Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.

Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

and he now wants to give power to Parliament to vary that subsequently.

Mr. ISAACS.-It is not clause 120A that he is proposing now.

[start page 1761]

Mr. KINGSTON.-It was in the Bill.

Mr. ISAACS.-Commonwealth citizenship.

Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. But if we do not know what you mean by citizenship-

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.

15 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different

Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

Вам также может понравиться