Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 50

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:48:33 +1100 (EST)

"Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>


From:
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com.au.
Subject: Re: ROYAL COMMISSION - etc
To: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
CC: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. Kevin Rudd 2-12-2007
Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
5 .
"MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®"
.
Re: ROYAL COMMISSION into the involvement of Australian troops with the invasion
into the sovereign nations Afghanistan and Iraq, including all other associated matters,
10 including the conviction of the late President Saddam Hussein and others.
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
Mr. Kevin Rudd,
15 .
Either we have a Constitution or we don’t. If we have a Constitution then no one is above the
Constitution and we must ensure that those who appear or may have placed themselves above the
Constitution (including any legislation enacted within constitutional powers and limits) are
appropriately dealt with.
20 .
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As
25 regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
.
My claim is that Mr. John Howard and others unconstitutionally and/or unlawfully engaged
themselves in a conspiracy to invade sovereign nations and this in breach of Section 24AA of the
30 Crimes Act (Cth) also, and participates and/or otherwise permitted/condoned or otherwise was
involved in the mass murder of many civilians in the sovereign nations Afghanistan and/or Iraq,
including but not limited to CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, WAR CRIMES, TREASON,
TREACHERY, DESTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE and other conduct within the
aforementioned countries as well as within the Commonwealth of Australia and elsewhere, etc.
35 .
I have set out below some quotations of the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention
Debates where there is an extensive debate as to prerogative powers and the exercise of it. While
it brings out that basically the Governor-General acts on advise of the Minister, albeit he can
refuse to exercise prerogative powers where he deems it against the interest of the people, the
40 Prime minister has no powers to act without the prerogative power exercised by the Governor-
General to declare war or peace. This is a criteria that is very much relevant to the issue of when
is there a war declared and when is peace declared, and so if the unconstitutional war in Iraq and
so likewise in Afghanistan is still going on where the Governor-General has not proclaimed any
peace in regard of either country!

p1 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Indeed, this might also be relevant to the pay-structure of soldiers serving in such countries as if
no peace is declared then technically they are still in a war zone and should be entitled to the
appropriate pay structure in place for serving in a war zone.
.
5 I pursue a ROYAL COMMISSION to investigate these and other relevant matters including the
conduct of military officers such as the then General Cossgrove, in view that I personally did
provide him with correspondence about an invasion being unconstitutional/unlawful.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10 and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that
the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or
wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
.
Therefore this is not about holding Ministers of the Crown responsible just in the Parliament
15 before their peers but to hold them lawfully accountable as "officials" normally are not held
accountable for their conduct before the Parliament.
.
While it is known that John Howard much argued about the "CHILDREN OVERBOARD" that
no one told him, even so the rest of Australia basically knew already from the media report that
20 the photo’s had been admitted to have been doctored, it then has to be questioned if such a lame
duck excuse can be used to excuse a person who is on record that he check the newspapers, etc,
in the morning as first thing.
Also, could it be accepted that a person who takes on a position as Prime Minister somehow can
squeal himself out of responsibilities by claiming not to have known, not to have been told, etc,
25 such as in the AWB sandal or that such lame duck excuses simply borders to the absurd and
should not be held acceptable. Indeed, could it be held that this is the standard of accountability
the Courts could adopt when it has alleged offenders before it that the accused then can claim no
one told him, etc?
No less then a ROYAL COMMISSION ought to do to investigate all these matters because
30 after all, if this is ignored then one day we may have another person like John Howard, under
whatever name he may go, and then we can end having a reply that the Commonwealth of
Australia itself ends up being invaded and the harm coming from this.
.
Far to much of a nonsense is going on that really few if anyone may know what laws are really
35 constitutionally valid and we need therefore for this also a ROYAL COMMISSION, to attend
to those issues. For example there is legislation on foot dealing with both Houses of Parliament
to vote for approval of an armed conflict, but constitutionally this is not relevant as the Framers
of the Constitution made clear that only the Governor-General could declare war or peace. They
also made clear that one could not act unless the proclamation first was published in the Gazette.
40 It therefore is relevant to establish under what constitutional authority, if any, did John Howard
authorise the armed invasion into Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Did the Governor-General refuse to
publish such a DECLARATION OF WAR that was needed? Did John Howard at all seek such
DECLARATION OF WAR?
Because I did provide numerous correspondence to Members of Federal Parliament or pretended
45 Members of Federal Parliament this too ought to be considered if as such John Howard knew or
should have known better. It is not the issue that he had to rely upon my writings but that at least
he was provided with information reasonably could be considered to be of such importance to be
checked. And while John Howard and other then members of the coalition may have cleared out
their offices and in the process destroyed some or all of correspondence, as copies were
50 published considerably in my books the content of those correspondence therefore can be
retrieved for any investigation.
p2 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
Likewise, the issue is was John Howard indeed a Prime Minister at the time that he authorised
the armed invasion in too Iraq, where already then the validity of all writs were challenged by me
and on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld both appeals on all constitutional and
5 other legal grounds UNCHALLENGED by the Australian Electoral Commission, the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and all Attorney-General despite of the 2002
filed Section 78B Judiciary Act (Cth) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
Indeed is Australia constitutionally still at war where the Governor-General did not publish in the
Gazette any DECLARATION OF WAR?
10 Was it unlawful for the Federal Government to allow the execution of the Late President
Saddam Hussein, where Australia has abolished the death penalty and still remained a military
occupier of Iraq?
What is the constitutional position of a Prime Minister, where albeit the Framers of the
Constitution intended there would be a Prime Minister he is not as such specifically mentioned in
15 the Constitution? Is it therefore correct that the Prime Minister has the function to establish a
"Cabinet" of fellow Members of Parliament and/or persons who can act as Ministers for up to 3
months without being a Member of Federal Parliament for the purpose to assist the Governor-
General being the "ADMINISTRATOR" of the Commonwealth of Australia (for the Crown) as
his advisers and Ministers are appointed to be responsible Ministers for the Department under
20 their authority.
Was the conduct of the Prime Minister to keep "refugees" on an unseaworthy boat at
ASHMORE REEF within his constitutional powers or was it no less then a scandalous barbaric
unconstitutional/unlawful conduct that denied those people of DUE PROCESS OF LAW?
Considering also the provisions of State and Commonwealth regarding unseaworthy boats and
25 the Titanic Board of Inquiry recommendations!
.
What then is DUE PROCESS OF LAW, when people fleeing the very nations Australians are
involved in bombing back to the stone age are detained in concentration type Commonwealth
Detention Centres, and the process is so unconstitutionally/unlawful that hundreds of law-abiding
30 persons are in the process also kidnapped of their streets, their workplace and/or their homes and
detained and/or deported!
.
The time has come to have a comprehensive ROYAL COMMISSION into these and related
issues so that never again such a tyranny is used over anyone.
35 Indeed, it also has to deal with the purported ASIO anti terrorism legislation if they are in fact
constitutionally permissible. This, as in my view most are not at all.
.
Likewise, it should be investigated, as I have all along alleged, that it is unconstitutional for the
Commonwealth of Australia to provide any specific person with tax free income, such as Peter
40 Reith, former Minister of Defence, as this is prohibited by the constitution. The commonwealth
as an employer has no more right then any State government employer and cannot for itself to
exclude its mates and others from taxation liability as the framers of the Constitution made clear
that only progressive tax threshold applicable to all Australians can be applied.
As such, what appears to me a form of bribery, to give a former Minister a tax free cosy job of
45 about $250.000 – as reported- might be a way to silence the Former Minister from telling the
truth after having left the service of the Crown.
Indeed, likewise it should be investigated if the Ministers are in fact unconstitutionally and so
fraudulently robbing the Consolidated Revenue Funds with salaries which the Constitution
provides for can only be paid by the British Crown! Further, if there is any scope to pay former
50 Governor-General’s and former Prime Ministers with special provisions such as an office, etc
where they are no longer employed by the Crown at cost of Australian taxpayers?
p3 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
This is all interrelated because the what I view corruption and DICTATORSHIP is a massive
conduct that intertwines to the extend to have purported substituted the Constitution itself also as
to rob the people of their constitutional rights and to replace "constitutional parliaments" with
5 "sovereign Parliaments" and so prevent the people to exercise their constitutional rights.
.
It should be a reminded that the High Court of Australia has only judicial powers for so far
provided in the Constitution and cannot exercise any judicial powers beyond this. In HCA 27 of
1999 (Wakim) the High Court of Australia itself acknowledged that a federal court order that is
10 unconstitutional has no legal force! And therefore numerous decisions by the High Court of
Australia which amounts to seeking to amend the application of constitutional provisions,
including its 14-11-2006 judgment regarding the so called WorkChoices legislation, is and
remains to be unconstitutional and so without legal force. We cannot have that judges places
themselves above the constitution as it did with Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, Pochi and numerous
15 other cases to use/misuse their legal powers to somehow amend the constitution by their
judgments. What it does underline is the need for a properly educated and certified person to be
eligible to be appointed as a judge to the High Court of Australia and never again get a judge
refusing to hand down a judgment on the basis he doesn’t know the constitutional issues before
the Court!
20 .
I understand that the High Court of Australia, for example handed down its decision about
Section 64 of the Constitution, but the truth is that a Parliamentarian secretary is not a member of
the Federal Executive, a requirement of Section 64 of the Constitution and neither would be a
Minister of State hence, for example the appointment of Maxime McKew, and others, as
25 Parliament Secretary would be an OFFICE OF PROFIT with the Commonwealth and within
Section 44 of the Constitution would disqualify Maxine McKew and other parliamentarian
secretaries to be accepting any seat in the Parliament while they hold such a position.
The Framers of the Constitution, regardless what the High Court of Australia stated in Sykes v
Cleary, made clear that OFFICE OF PROFIT related to a Commonwealth position and not to a
30 State OFFICE OF PROFIT as no conflict arose with holding a State OFFICE OF PROFIT.
They also made clear that the Section 44 disqualification applies only at the time of the person
seeking to take up a seat or when already holding a seat to take up an OFFICE OF PROFIT
with the Commonwealth but did not apply to the person holding an OFFICE OF PROFIT with
the Commonwealth during an election and thereafter up to the time the person taking up a seat in
35 Federal Parliament or when holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. As such, being it Maxine
McKew or any other person holding a Parliamentarian Secretary position I view they would not
be able to take up their seat if they hold this position at the time that parliament has its first
session and neither could take up this position as Parliamentarian Secretary after having accepted
their seat in Parliament. Maxine McKew and others, elected for a seat in the House of
40 Representatives, are not Members of Parliament unless and until they accept their seat elected for
at the first sitting of Parliament, as is neither Kevin Rudd. Until then there are no members of
the House of Representatives! Maxine McKew may claim victory of the seat of Bennelong but
this depends upon the AEC so declaring it and even then, as was shown by the Wood’s case if
there is a disqualification applicable (not that I seek to imply that) then she will never be a
45 Member of Parliament!
.
Also must be investigated the extend of the Australian Electoral Commission and the
Commonwealth Ombudsman in electoral matters, where all writs were defective in the purported
2001, 2004 and 2007 federal elections but both the Australian Electoral Commission and /or the
50 Commonwealth Ombudsman abused their powers to refuse to take appropriate action to resolve
matters when appropriate and required to be done. Considering also my 7-9-2—2 complaint the
p4 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Commonwealth Ombudsman refused to investigate even so he could then already have exposed
hundreds of person wrongly detained!
.
It cannot be accepted that on the one hand I succeeded UNCHALLENGED in my 5-year
5 litigation against the validity of all writs issued in 2001 and so that John Howard and others were
never validly elected and as such the appointment of John Howard as Prime minister was
maximum for 3 months in view of the limitations set out in Section 64 of the Constitution and as
such John Howard was not a Prime Minister at all at the time he authorised the armed invasion
into Iraq.
10 .
Also needs to be investigated the conduct of the judges of the High Court of Australia to
fraternize with the first Defendant the Governor-General when I had litigation before the Very
High Court of Australia and its overall conduct to refuse to hear and determine on its merits the
applications for Mandamus/Prohibition, such as the third time on the very day the armed
15 invasion took place on 19 March 2003, and if those orders therefore were constitutionally valid
and or enforceable, and what position and/or involvement did the judges have, including also the
judges of the Federal Court of Australia, considering also what was recorded on transcript and
further what was stated in the documents before the court. As such also the conduct of Mr. Peter
Hanks QC –acting for the Australian Electoral Commission and others- to pervert the course of
20 justice to make false and misleading/deceptive statements and/or to conceal relevant material and
to substitute words in quotation of authority etc, as to ensure that my applications were wrongly
defeated.
.
Australians have a right to know their true identity and not have it covered up by innuendo’s and
25 other false and misleading claims by parliamentarians and judges for some NEW WORLD
ORDER or other kind of concept. Indeed, the judges training and competence to deal with
constitutional issues also should be attended to as when a judge reportedly refuses to hand down
a judgment on the basis not to know the constitutional issues in the case before the Court then
one may realise there is no proper standard to ensure competent judges are appointed to the High
30 Court of Australia. Currently, in certain instances Australians are unconstitutionally robbed of
their right to travel abroad by the denial of a passport. The issue is what passport are they entitled
upon and has the Commonwealth any power to in fact unconstitutionally deny any Australian of
their liberty to travel abroad? Indeed, are Australians as Barton on 2-3-1898 "subjects of the
British Crown" and as such all the nonsense of "non-citizenship" being used to detain/deport
35 people is unconstitutional and an abuse of power? After all since federation no referendum was
held , let alone approved to amend the constitution to rob Australians of their constitutional right
and position to be "Subjects of the British Crown".
If therefore as the Framers of the Constitution made clear (2-3-1898) the Commonwealth of
Australia has no constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship, then on what constitutional
40 basis can the Commonwealth then detain any person as being "non-citizen" in those
unconstitutional concentration camp styled Commonwealth Detention Centres and/or
unconstitutional Pacific Island solution centres? Because of the extend to which all issues go and
the fast amount of material on record as have been published by me already I view that a
ROYAL COMMISSION must be given comprehensive powers to investigate these and related
45 matters as failing to do so may very well result that one day some other country may decide to do
a John Howard "pre-emptive strike" and invade the Commonwealth of Australia and bomb us to
the stone age, wrecking our infrastructure, etc, if not for our oil, or uranium, coal, etc, then
because they too don’t like the leader of the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
50 We either have a Constitution or we don’t, and it is long past the time to pretend one thing and
use another.
p5 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
For many years now I have campaigned for the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN,
a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courts
as to constitutional powers and limitations. Indeed, had this been created years ago we may have
been able to avoid many problems. It is totally absurd that the interpretation of what is
5 constitutionally permissible, such as passing a Bill in the Parliament, is left to parliamentarians
who may themselves have never even read the Constitution, without having some reliable advise
as to if the Bill (proposed legislation) is constitutionally permissible or not. Within the
constitutional framework existing the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN could be created without
upsetting the separation of powers, but we may avoid ever again having a judge claiming not to
10 know the constitutional issues before the Court in a case, this because the OFFICE OF THE
GUARDIAN could presents its views regarding constitutional issues and so the judges can use
that as some source of information and so the parties before the court regardless if all or any is
accepted. Likewise so with parliamentarians. The OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN as such
would not provide some political bias view but would be independent of any political views.
15 .
The purported ASIO powers for Australians to be detained and held in custody without DUE
PROCESS OF LAW and a "JUDICIAL DETERMINATION" in itself should horrify anyone
that such draconic kind of legislation ever was allowed to be passed through both Houses of
Parliament, which are unconstitutional and so without legal force.
20 .
How absurd that some UNITED NATIONS could possible override constitutional limitations!
The United Nations has no constitutional authority and therefore has no power to override
constitutional limitations. The people may like to accept some of its decision but are not and
cannot be bound to do so.
25 .
Bit by bit Members of Parliament in their ever ongoing quest to gain more power and to rob the
people of their constitutional powers have done everything possible, including purportedly
substituting the Constitution, and by this the ultimate DICTATORSHIP such as that by John
Howard eventuated. This must be stopped and those involved held accountable, before some
30 other nation may just take a "PRE-EMPTIVE STIKE" against the Commonwealth of Australia
and teaches us what it is to be at the receivers end.
.
The time is now to attend to these issues as a matter of extreme urgency as to ignore it is to leave
it up to anyone to take instead the appropriate action against those who abused/misused
35 constitutional powers and those who by their silence or otherwise failed to act appropriately.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I will come to that in a moment, if my learned friend will excuse
me; I cannot deal with two things at one time. I am dealing now with a broad general
40 principle in the way in which I wish to see it carried out, treating it as a fundamental
principle which might well be inserted in the Constitution, that when we are handing over
the right to take our railways, and the sole power to impose and collect customs duties,
we at least might say to this new body we are creating: The humblest subject shall have
as much remedy against you as if you were a subject instead of a representative of the
45 Queen. That is a right and just thing, and it is being affirmed more strongly, year by year,
in every British-speaking community. We have not advanced so far in South Australia as
they have in New South Wales, but the march is strong and sure, and the time is not far
distant when the petition of right and all these special provisions will be done away with,
and the same remedy will be given to the subject against the Crown as the subject is
50 liable to himself. I think we might, on the attempt to found this great
Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation,
p6 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there
shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of
the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may
do, in the same way as any private person would be.
5 .
Again;
and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that
the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or
wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
10 .
I may state that on 19 March 2003, the day of the very invasion by Australian troops into the
sovereign nation Iraq, the High Court of Australia for the third time refused to allow my
applications for writs of prohibition/mandamus against the deployment of Australian troops into
the sovereign Iraq to proceed and be heard upon its merits, even so the application had been
15 amended as per directions of the Deputy Registrar of the High court of Australia at Melbourne.
However, in a 5-year litigation battle for "FAILING TO VOTE" between the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions (for the Australian Electoral Commission) many of the
constitutional issues raised in the applications before the High Court of Australia were also
before the County Court of Victoria and so UNCHALLENGED by the Commonwealth Director
20 of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Electoral Commission and any of the Attorney-Generals
even so they all had been served in 2002 with a Section 78B Judiciary Act (Cth) NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
25 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown
in prosecuting criminals are.
[start page 1685]
Mr. GORDON.-Even that embraces a very large body of rights, and the principle is the same. We have to
rely in many of our relations on the probity of the Attorney-General, on the probity of the Parliament, or, to
30 go further down, on the probity of the community. Upon all these grounds I contend that the amendment is
one that ought to be passed. It leaves the whole executive power open to attack. Once a law is passed
anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power
once the question of ultra vires is raised. Under the clause, as I have amended it, it will not prevent the
plea of ultra vires being raised where it is accompanied with the plea of a conflict of law. If there is a state
35 law and a Commonwealth law on the same subject, every citizen is entitled to know which be should obey.
If he joins a plea of ultra vires with a plea of conflict of law, that ought to be heard.
As such, whereas the High Court of Australia refused to hear and determine the matters upon
their merits, as set out in the about 800 pages supportive affidavit material, the County Court of
Victoria provided with this and further material, including my 6-7-2006 published book;
40 .
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
.
45 This book also contained all relevant documents that were before the Court. Which book was
filed as "evidence" in support of my case!
.
Much is argued about the United Nations and that it authorised the invasion into the sovereign
nation Afghanistan albeit it did not authorise the armed invasion into Iraq, as my correspondence
50 of the past and this correspondence will make clear it is irrelevant if the United Nations did or
didn’t authorise any invasion as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that no treaty could
override constitutional limitations.
.

p7 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Constitutionally, if there is a actual attack (not some perceived attack) then the Minister of
Defence, and no other person, is authorised to use Australian troops immediately against any
enemy troops for the defence of Australian soil. However, the Framers of the Constitution also
made it clear that to declare war or peace is a prerogative power only the Governor-General can
5 exercise. The Governor-General (not Governor-General in Council) by Section 68 is Commander
in Chief of the armed forces. This, so the Governor-General is not bound to act upon the advise
of the Minister for Defence, if the minister were to pursue a declaration of war and the Governor-
General held that this was not advisable and against the general public’s interest.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, the Minister of Defence could not act unless the
10 Governor-General first had published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR.
.
Much is argued that at the time former Prime Minister Bob Hawke did allow troops to go into the
first Gulf War and so by "convention" this is permitted, but if we are going to rely upon
whatever "convention" anyone desires to make then why at all have a Constitution?
15 .
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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,
20 because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as
a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we
have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should
we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of
25 the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a
referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the
Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that
reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
.
30 What is made clear is that no one is above the law, as otherwise we might as well leave all
powers by a Minister to do as he likes.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I wish to say a few words on this subject. At the outset I would say
35 that I am not very particular whether this matter is dealt with by such a clause as drafted by the Drafting
Committee or whether it is dealt with by a clause giving the Parliament power to deal with the subject. I can
without much difficulty meet my honorable friend (Mr. Symon), but I do hold a strong opinion that it
would be necessary to provide for this matter in the Constitution in the manner we have provided for it in
this draft or else to take the power for Parliament to make laws upon the subject. The question has been
40 asked whether the Parliament cannot make laws affecting the prerogative. The answer is-"Yes" and
"No." The Parliament can make laws affecting the prerogative in respect of any matter in which it
has express power of legislation or a power necessarily implied. It cannot make laws affecting the
prerogative in matters with respect to which it has no power to make laws.
Mr. FRASER.-Can it not get authority?
45 .
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law which is ultra vires.
Mr. GORDON.-The honorable member will see that I am not declaring that any law which is ultra vires is
not ultra vires. I am simply limiting the area of attack.
50 Mr. SYMON.-The man who is ruined by it is not to take that point.
Mr. GORDON.-We must postulate of all our Parliaments that they will not pass laws which are
ethically indefensible.
.

p8 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Because there is a gross abuse of power where Members of Parliament, who may know little
more but being a sport star are entrusted in voting upon legislation they haven'’ got a clue what is
constitutionally permissible, it generally is that the leader of the party dictates how they shall
vote. As such those who are to represent their constituents really are voting along party lines
5 dictated by their leaders.
A danger is that leaders of political parties are more and more involving religion as to try to snare
votes, including those of "Exclusive Brethern" who albeit allegedly do not vote were spending
huge amount of monies as I understand it to be seeking to influence others how to vote.
QUOTE Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian
10 Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian
* Gary, what is your view about this Judeo-Christian thing?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I am not some converted Jew, I have real Jewish blood flowing through my veins,
inherited from my ancestors but would like every one TO SHUT UP about religion and accept the wisdom of the
Framers of the Constitution that they didn’t want this POLITICAL UNION, the Commonwealth of Australia to be
15 torn with religious hatred.
Being it Muslims, atheist or whatever their social and other values are as much important to us in Australia then that
of Jews, Christians, etc. We do not, and this is what the Framers of the Constitution warned about, have this
Commonwealth of Australia decent into some religious civil war. There is absolutely no validity in seeking to argue
that somehow Christian values are overriding, as many non-Christians have contributed to this development of this
20 continent and none were rejected because of their values may have been non-Christian.
Lets make it clear, the value of a person is not and never should be measured in his/her religious or non-religious
lifestyle but rather in what the person stood for as a human being. As I have already previously extensively
canvassed this issue I do not propose to repeat all the same again. Just that I will highlight some matters.
Why should a murdered who happen to have a religion that god forgive sins be better then a non-religious
25 person who does not commit such a crime?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599 ,21752187-2,00.html
Tradition
Immigration minister Kevin Andrews said the test would force potential citizens to know about Australia’s
political system, Aboriginal history and that the nation’s values were based on Judeo -Christian tradition.
30
"It's the sort of thing you would expect someone who goes through school in Australia would know at the
end of secondary school, and probably in some instances at the end of primary school," Mr Andrews told
the Herald Sun.

35 One of the questions is likely to be: "Which city is the capital of Australia: Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra or
Hobart?"

Another is: "Which animals are on the coat of arms?" Among the possible answers is: "Lion and unicorn".

40 The test will be based on a new resource book, The Australian Way of Life, being drawn up by the
Immigration Department.
The US Courts have extensive ruling on matters such as the one quoted below and the Framers of the Constitution
themselves also explained matters.
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
45 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
50 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption
letter and support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation


55 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized
or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a
religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
And
p9 2 -12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple;
do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
5 And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They
are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
10 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
15 words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354 -356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
20 conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
25 extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I know that a great many people have been got to sign petitions in favour of inserting such religious words
30 in the preamble of this Bill by men who know the course of the struggle in the United States, but who have
not told the people what the course of that struggle is, and what the motive for these words is. I think the
people of Australia ought to have been told frankly when they were asked to sign these petitions what the
history in the United States has been on the subject, and the motive with which these words have been
proposed. I think the people in Australia are as reverential as any people on the face of this earth, so I will
35 make no opposition to the insertion of seemly and suitable words, provided that it is made perfectly clear in
the substantive part of the Constitution that we are not conferring on the Commonwealth a power to pass
religious laws. I want to leave that as a reserved power to the state, as it is now. Let the states have the
power. I will not interfere with the individual states in the power they have, but I want to make it
clear that in inserting these religious words in the preamble of the Bill we are not by inference giving
40 a power to impose on the Federation of Australia any religious laws.
And
Mr. HIGGINS.-No; I think the honorable member will see that a recital in the preamble to the
Constitution is a very different thing from an oath which may be taken in a court of justice or
anywhere else.
45 Mr. DOUGLAS.-You will find that you can make an affirmation without referring to Almighty God.
Any person can make an affirmation who has no belief in Almighty God.
The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think the honorable member is in order in making a speech.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I thank the honorable member for being disorderly under the circumstances. I think
there is a good deal of force in what he says, but I also see this, that the taking of an oath in a court of
50 justice or on taking office is quite a different thing from having in a well thought-out preamble to a
Constitution any reference to religious belief.
END QUOTE Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian
.
Many argue that because Queen Elizabeth II is head of a Church then therefore it applies also to
55 the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit the Queen is the monarch of the United Kingdom and not
Monarch over Australia in that regard but the Commonwealth of Australia rather is a
"POLITICAL UNION" existing of r nations known as States within the Commonwealth of
Australia which were and remained to be "dominions".
As shown below in transcript of April 1897 the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the
60 Queen’s standing in the Church of England is not relevant as such to the Commonwealth of
p10 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Australia, which was created as a "POLITICAL UNION" to specifically outlaw any religion to
be used one way or another by the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit the States retained their
colonial powers to legislate as to religion.
.
5 And as shown below in the quotations of "Chapter 007A The Great Deception" and "Chapter
000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED" the High Court of Australia adds it fair
share of problem to this that make an utter mess of it all BY SOME OF ITS UTTER AND
SHEER NONSENSE IT STATES;
QUOTE Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
10 Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
* Gary, what is your view about McHugh’s statement ?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, how can anyone put the Court in disrepute when you have such idiotic statement
of a judge. Well, I have put my bit on the Internet about it.
In my view considering that statement the parliament should have moved to have him removed from the bench as
15 soon as he made that statement.
If this is the kind of mentality and intelligence that we can expect from judges of the High Court
of Australia then I think we might as well appoint one of my grandchildren to the bench and at
least they be rather playing with toys and crayons and say nothing sensible then the utter rubbish
that we now had. And this kind of intelligence, or the lack thereof, is used to deal with

20 constitutional matters, no wonder wee are going downhill!


index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635 index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
QUOTE 070520 posting
I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;

25 QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta
and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

30 QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is
said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE

35 As a "constitutionalist" (not some lawyer who is brainwashed) I condemn any one, in particularly judges, to
undermine the constitutional system that exist in the POLITICAL UNION BEING THE Commonwealth of
Australia.

The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is created by Statue and itself has no
40 common law. Hence, any jury that were to be involved in federal hearings must be drawn from a State.

As author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books in regard of constitutional and other matters I have set
out extensively how I succeeded and defeated Federal Government lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all
constitutional issues I raised!
45
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was an act to create a "APOLITICAL
UNION" and the States who partly federated retaining all legislative powers regarding "CIVIL RIGHTS"
as it was their constitutions that were based upon the provisions of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas
corpus, etc.
50
In the Commonwealth of Australia, judges are appointed to the High Court of Australia regardless lacking

p11 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
any competence in constitutional matters, in fact they may never have practiced in constitutional matters,
and in one incident a judge actually refused to hand down a judgment other then to state he didn't have any
knowledge in the constitutional matter before the court and for this would abstain from handing down a
judgment.
5
You find it as a matter of record that where the Governor-General was Defendant in a case before the High
Court of Australia then all 7 judges subsequently fraternised with the governor-General, and no one has to
be surprised the Court subsequently refused to allow the case to be heard upon its MERITS.

10 In the Commonwealth of Australia judges are purportedly appointed by the Governor-General but he
merely appoints those who the Government provides to be appointed. Hence a political stacking occurs.

The High Court of Australia in 1996 using their powers as a "persona designata" to make decisions for the
parliament, approved of the entire constitution to be replaced by the Australia act 1986 (forget about it
15 being constitutionally valid) so that there no longer is a "constitutional Parliament" but the parliament now
is above the constitution. As it now legislated the (purported) constitution.

But, I successfully challenged this validity of this De Facto Constitution in Court.

20 Having myself served in the NATO at the then IRON CURAIN having been trained as a sharpshooter, I
personally deplore the usage of weapons, as I am trained to use it to kill. However, I recognise the right of
others to bear arms, for defending their rights, and even the Framers of the Constitution (Australia)
indicated that militia could be drawn from civilians of a State after the federation was created. This to me
implied that the commonwealth of Australia would have been able to enlist armed civilians to serve at that
25 time to protect the shores of the Commonwealth of Australia until it could set up its own defence force.

There are always terrible incidents involving firearms that stand out. Likewise there are also terrible
incidents where motor vehicles are standing out in having resulted to mass killings.

30 Personally, I would prefer not a single person to have a firearm, but then I have to recognise that others
may desire that everyone should have a weapon to defend himself/herself.

My wife, op posed me to even fit a knife sharpers on the kitchen wall, but wanted me to hide it in a pantry,
as she fears that someone might come in the residence and see the knives and use it wrongly.
35
Surely, we are not going to ban all knives in the world?

When anyone desires to exercise a right then the person must also accept there are obligations.

40 Hence regulations as to the storage, handling and usage of a firearm should be deemed to be appropriate
where it provides for what is locally required.

Therefore, while a person may have the right to own a firearm, the Parliament rightfully could legislate to
have the usage, carrying, etc made subject to conditions.
45
Where there is a constitutional right, implied or otherwise, that a person may bear arms to defend himself
then I view one cannot limit the usage of a weapon to be some small handgun, a tank, or a warplane, as
depending what your personal conditions are you may need one or another, without having any intention to
use it against other civilians.
50
The Supreme Court (USA) has extensively decided cases regarding infringements of RELIGION and I for
one admire the Courts numerous judgments I read. If the same kind of logic was used regarding the right to
bear arms, then I view likewise both parliamentarians and civilians should accept this kind of reasoning.

55 I for one do not desire to use a weapon, do not like them being used, but that are my personal views, and I
recognise others have total opposite views. They have their right on their opinion as much as I have and as
such I view that the concentration should not be as to how to make inroads to the rights of others, but rather
how can we facilitate the rights of others without that our own rights (including that of personal safety, as
not to be held up by some crazy gunman) jeopardised needlessly.
60
In particular those of the law enforcement who are risking their lives daily to protect innocent citizens of
harm they must not unduly be jeopardised in their law enforcement positions because inappropriate
regulations allow anyone to obtain a weapon.
p12 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
While many people argue about the right of freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, few do actually
concentrate on the issue of right of freedom of travel, even so this likewise was protected by old English
law.
5
Not to many people argue that their right to travel is denied where they must first have a driving licence to
drive a motor vehicle, where as no kind of driving licence existed to drive a cart-and-wagon. As such,
somehow we have accepted inroads to our guaranteed freedoms because society allowed for this where as
in regard of weapons we may have different positions pending the local society we reside in.
10
In my view, the right to legislate that a person should not be allowed to bear arms cannot be justified on a
court decision, as if the freedom to bear arms is guaranteed then I view not a court in the land could
possible make an order contrary to it.

15 We therefore may have to look at the constitutional framework as to what was existing at the time each
constitution was created and if the conditions then existed that a Court could actually have denied a person
to bear arms. If in history it can be shown that certain persons were denied by the local authorities to bear
arms, then it must be accepted that the Constitution albeit if it provides for the right to bear arms then was
created upon the understanding that such implied freedom was at all times deemed to be subject to court
20 judicial decisions and or legislative powers.

As a "constitutionalist" I find it laughable how judges, despite their extensive legal training, can come up
with such utter and sheer nonsense such as McHugh J did with his statement ;

25 QUOTE

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said,
some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE
30
As no such constitutional system operates that would allow the parliament to enact such laws.

And there I have to come back upon the other quotation;

35 QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta
and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

40 Lawyers are being trained in legal studies by other lawyers and as such are brainwashed far to often that
some LEGAL FICTION is FLEGAL REALITY>

As I exposed in my book published on 30 September 2003

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
There is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare "citizenship" as
Australians are constitutionally "subjects of the British Crown". Citizenship is a "POLITICAL
POSITION" of rights, including franchise, and has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" yet the High
Court of Australia goes on as if it is a nationality.
55
In court, on 19 July 2006, I defeated the Federal Government lawyers also on this matter.

Hence, having has a legal study and having obtained law degrees in itself will not prove you are not
brainwashed by LEGAL FICTION but more then likely you are.
60
Hence, the work as a constitutionalist is to expose this.

Only when we are dealing with LEGAL REALITY and have appropriately explored the constitutional

p13 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
basis upon which constitutional rights, implied or otherwise, were provided for in the constitution can we
commence to address the issues such as the right to bear arms, etc.

And to make clear, no Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any legislative powers to allow
5 the killing of blue-eyed babies or for such kind of nonsense, as none of the State constitutions could allow
for such legislative nonsense as they are all bound to make laws for "the peace, order, and good
government", even so judges likewise fails to recognise this constitutional limitation.

As the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear the Constitution was the "new Magna Carta".
10 END QUOTE 070520 posting
The danger is that if some fanatical religion were to come to power in Australia it could in fact rely upon these and
other stupid and irresponsible statements of the High Court of Australia and turn this Commonwealth of Australia
into some murderous regime, to pursue "ethnic cleansing" and fund their religious schools at taxpayers expenses.
Whatever may suit to today for the so-called Judeo-Christians may tomorrow suit a other fanatical religion to
15 achieve precisely the opposite! This is what we should keep in mind, and why the Framers of the Constitution so
much sought to prevent this kind of religious war to exist in the Commonwealth of Australia.
END QUOTE Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
.
QUOTE Chapter 007A The Great Deception
20 Chapter 007A The Great Deception
* Gary, "The Great Deception" by whom?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, just read the Chapter 034T of the book (published on 17-3-
2007);
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS
25 For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6 was ISBN 0-9751760-4-3
QUOTE Chapter 034T
Gary, The Great Deception?
INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, this document also sets out how the judges of the High Court of Australia are deceiving
30 us as to the application of the Constitution! It is to be read in conjunction with other documents such as "Is our
Constitution safe", "The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE", etc.
Anyhow, I quote below the document "The Great Deception";
The Great Deception
QUOTE
35 I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally from
the legal principles that are embedded in the Constitution.
END QUOTE
In my 2-8-2003 correspondence, published previously in my book (30 September 2003);
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
40 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 978-0-9580569 -6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
I included the following, in regard of the issue of the detention of David Hicks;
QUOTE
http://store.yahoo.com/4crests/magnacarta.html
45 When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned
to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The
conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law
of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent
English laws.
50
This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and the sixth states

55 . . . the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. Written 575 years
earlier, Magna Carta declares

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, . . . or in any other way destroyed . . . except by the lawful
judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right
p14 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
or justice. In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and
constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede.
Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a
charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the
5 establishment of a government by and for "We the People."
Magna Carta
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or
exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send
others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
10 (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the
realm and are minded to keep it well.
(49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for
peace or for loyal service.
15 (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen,
their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it , to its harm, with horses and arms.
(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our
kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they
shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the
20 following security:
It is clear that the above stated applies "forever".
END QUOTE
Since then the US Supreme Court handed down its decision that the Magna Charta does apply to the US
Constitution.
25 Lets now consider what the High Court of Australia stated in;
Transcript of High Court Appeal
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)
30 McHUGH J: But is not the problem you face that the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688 are
not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way the Constitution is binding on those
legislatures? Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution is entitled to
legislate in total disregard of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, as is the United Kingdom Parliament.
Take the situation in Northern Ireland. They abolished trial by jury in Northern Ireland. If you go back to
35 Magna Carta which, I suppose, is really the heart of your argument, it is really more a statement of political
ideals. They are not constitutional documents in the sense that the Australian Constitution and the United
States Constitution are.
Well, the US Supreme Court has (since the publication of my book on 30-9-2003) clearly ruled
that the Magna Charta is applicable to the US constitution.
40 Now, lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated during the Constitution Convention
Debates;
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. OCONNOR .-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection
45 to every citizen.
Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
Mr. OCONNOR .-In what way?
Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
Mr. OCONNOR .-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these
50 Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these
Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due
process of law . Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any
state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our
dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the
55 Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within
the limits of any State.
Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.
Mr. OCONNOR .-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by any state if it
chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of offences, or particular class of
60 persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects of some wild impulse on the part of a majority
of the community, and unjust laws were passed-
p15 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Mr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?
Mr. OCONNOR .-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not necessary to refer to.
Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna Charta?
Mr. OCONNOR .-What Constitution?
5 Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by an Act of the
Federal Parliament?
Mr. OCONNOR .-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the Constitution of the
states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact any laws which it thought fit, and
even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only
10 dealing with a possibility, but at the same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might,
would be very disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it.
[start page 684]
Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
15 Australasian Convention)
Mr. GLYNN.-I am now speaking of the English law. It has been somewhat modified in the Straits
Settlements, and in one or two other parts of the empire, I believe, by giving a right of action for tort in
certain cases, but I do not think that this extended right of action has ever been given in any of the colonies.
Conditions justifying actions for damages against the Crown, however, are almost as frequent as actions for
20 breach of contract. In Canada a man sued the Crown for damages received in connexion with a railway
accident, but he was debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect
in the railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen in the
case I have already mentioned, that-
Where the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown,
25 and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be obtained, compensation in
money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods supplied to the Crown or to the public
service-the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is
provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rights
of action are given to the subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim
30 against another subject.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. DEAKIN.-
. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
35 And
Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
40 government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into
any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in
framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in
this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty;
45 we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this
question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was
wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people
of Australia to themselves.
50 Again;
the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by
Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed.
Therefore it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that the Magna Charta
applied to the Constitution and it is not for the judges to then seek to amend the Constitution by
55 their own judgment to deny this to be applicable.
As much as the Magna Charta is applicable likewise so the Bill of Rights.
There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
60 GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of expansion, not
contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation.
p16 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect whatever, and that is
the doctrine of this Court. We do not make a decision as to whether the law is for the peace, for the order,
for the good government. It is assumed that if Parliament makes it, it is, and the real question is, is it a law
with the same respect to trade and commerce in other countries or whatever the relevant law of Parliament
5 relies on, but this Court has never attempted to say that a law, on the subject of trade and commerce, for
example, is not "for peace, order and good government". It is, in effect, a parliamentary expression rather
than a legal expression. It does not limit Parliament's power; it is said to expand them.
MR ESSENBERG: I am not really sure I understand that.
Now lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated, as set out more extensive in the
10 document "for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc" in Chapter 034O
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I agree that these words appear rather startling. [start page 559] They are taken
from the Federal Council Act of Australasia, and were inserted by the imperial authorities after
15 consideration and in substitution for more limited words that were proposed by the Convention that met
here in 1883. Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the federal parliament are only
to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, it was thought perfectly
safe to adopt them.
Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that if a ship leaves one of the Australian colonies for a British port,
20 say London, having a British register, until she actually arrives in Great Britain, the laws of the
commonwealth are binding upon her, and not the laws of Great Britain?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order,
and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was
necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the
25 commonwealth outside the 3-mile limit could possibly apply.
And
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws which
can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth.
HANSARD 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
30 Australasian Convention)
Mr. BARTON:
That was the Convention which had, I think, to be called in consequence of the New Guinea affair. Sir
Samuel went on:
Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the Federal Parliament are only to make
35 laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to
adopt them.
Sir Samuel Griffith's reply to that interjection was;
No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to
40 England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the Commonwealth outside the three-mile
limit could possibly apply.
That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly affect any law of
the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as they are not in conflict they will
be applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of those laws of the Commonwealth which it is
45 necessary to have enforced.
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania:
Omit the words "for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, lines 3, 4, and 5."
50 The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: This is an amendment which was made in the
legislature of Tasmania at the instance of the Hon. A.I. Clark. That gentleman has furnished these reasons
for the amendment, and, perhaps, in justice to him, I ought to read them:
These words are copied from the several acts of the Imperial Parliament providing for the establishment of
legislatures in the various Australian colonies, and are perfectly appropriate when used in reference to the
55 establishment of the legislature which is to possess plenary legislative powers, and have unlimited
jurisdiction on all questions relating to the protection of life and property, and the enforcement of
contractual rights of every kind; but it is very doubtful if they ought to find a place in connection with the
definition and delegation of limited legislative powers which do not include matters relating to the daily
protection of life and property, or to enforcement of private rights and obligations in general. It is true that
60 they find a place in the 91st section of the British North America Act, which establishes a federal
convention for Canada; but the primary object of that act is to limit the powers and jurisdiction of the
p17 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
provincial legislatures, and to vest the residuum of legislative authority in the Dominion of Canada in the
federal parliament. The words in question may, therefore, fitly find a place in that act, and they were relied
upon in the case of "The Attorney-General of Canada versus the Attorney-General of Ontario, which was
decided by the Privy Council last year[L.R.A.C. 1896] to uphold the act of the Dominion Parliament, which
5 had been challenged on the ground that it had encroached upon the domain of the provincial legislatures.
That decision, in its effect, appears to me to be, an argument against the insertion of the words in question
in connection with the definition and delegation of the legislative powers of the parliament of the
commonwealth, because they might, in some unforeseen and unexpected controversy, afford ground for an
argument in favour of the jurisdiction of the parliament of the commonwealth in matters which the several
10 states might claim to be wholly within their own legislative powers. It cannot be contended that they are
required for the purpose of giving the parliament of the commonwealth full power to legislate with regard
to all the subjects mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52; and, if they are not required for that purpose,
they must inevitably encourage the contention that they are inserted [start page 1037] for some additional
purpose. But, if their insertion in not intended to add in any way to the powers of parliament, in relation to
15 the matters mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52, then they violate the canon of drafting, which
requires that no unnecessary words should be used in giving expression to the intention of the legislature.
They are very properly inserted in section 53, because that section confers upon the parliament of the
commonwealth plenary and exclusive powers in regard to the several matters mentioned in the sub-section
of that section. But their presence in section 52 tends to create a resemblance in the scope of the powers
20 conferred by the two sections, whereas it would be much more desirable to make the difference in the
purport of each section as apparent and emphatic as possible.
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words
as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
25 commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
30 order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
35 sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they
had better not be left out of the bill altogether.
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
40 Committee.
Amendment negatived.
Again;
Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace,
order, and good government
45 HANSARD 13x-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. ISAACS.-The Parliament has by clause 52 full power and authority to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to a large number of matters that
are set out. This is a power that is without limitation.
50 It should be understood that while it was stated
This is a power that is without limitation.
It is within the limits of being for for the peace, order, and good government!
As such as long as it is within the scope of "for the peace, order, and good government" the
legislative powers is unlimited.
55 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. DEAKIN.-
. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
And
60 Mr. DEAKIN.-

p18 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
5 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into
any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in
framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. 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
10 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.
In my view judges such as Gummow J and McHugh J ought to have a retraining as to what is
15 constitutionally appropriate as I do not believe they have a clue what is applicable. Again, the
document "for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc" has extensively set out
how it was being used, including some opposition and a submission from Tasmania to have it
taken out as there should be an unlimited power, but it was made clear, that unlimited power
would exist within the confines of laws being for the "order, peace and good government" and
20 in the end this was retained in the Constitution! I for one wonder how on earth judges of the
High Court of Australia do not comprehend this!
I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally from the legal
principles that are embedded in the Constitution.
END QUOTE Chapter
25 * Do you view that it is , so to say, no longer the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION?
**#** In my view it has lost the plot. We are in a really bad situation, as while Section 64 of the
Constitution permits the Governor-General to appoint anyone (even not a Member of Parliament,
for up to three months) to be a Minister of State the Framers of the Constitution intended that
only Members of the House of Representatives would be permanent Ministers of State. There is a
30 clear conflict of interest when a Senator representing State interest instead represents the
Government of the Day. And we saw this with what I consider the infamous phone call by
Senator Boswell conceding to John Howard control of the Senate saying "Prime Minister you
have control of the Senate". I view no one could more be a traitor to the Constitution in that
regard as he did. By it destroying the very constitutional set up to have one House representing
35 the states and one representing the Commonwealth as whole. In my view, there is a conflict of
interest for any Senator to be a Minister of State. And, I view the government by this using it
numbers to deny many Members of parliament a copy of the Bill before the House to be voted
upon, and also allowing them sufficient time to consider and debate the issue is no less then
TERRORISM, and the High Court of Australia despite of this having shown not to have
40 considered this in its judgment completely failed to be a true GUARDIAN OF THE
CONSTITUTION. In my view it merely RUBBERSTAMPS what the Federal Government
desires under the pretext of considering the matter before the Court, it became as much part of
this crime of TERRORISM as any other criminal does where perhaps not pulling the trigger in a
hold-up nevertheless is an accomplish by driving the get away car or cause the criminal to elude
45 the police by harbouring the criminal. In my view, we should have specialist judges who only
deal with constitutional issues in the High Court of Australia, as in my view the High Court of
Australia simply is not up to the task to appropriately deal with constitutional issues in its current
set up. For this also the urgent need for the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, as I
for one cannot see how the High Court of Australia otherwise will ever be competent to fulfil its
50 task to be a GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION, where it proved already not able to do
so!
* Are you aware I asked just one question and you respond with about 7 pages answer! And it
wasn’t even fully about it all such as ULTRA VIRES, as I understood this Chapter was going to
be about!
p19 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
**#** Well it was regarding many issues but there is more, why not then go to the next Chapter,
shall we?
END QUOTE Chapter 007A The Great Deception
.
5 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation
according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by
10 "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do
not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal
I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of
Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
15 Mr. BARTON.-How would they raise the question?
Mr. GORDON.-Suppose it were a federal law, the Attorney-General of any of the states
could intervene in an actual suit, or place an abstract question before the High Court.
Mr. SYMON.-The state would not bother its head if the law only affected a few
individuals.
20 Mr. GORDON.-If the law only affected a few individuals, the state might not intervene,
but it is possible that a law referring to only a few individuals may involve the benefit of
the whole of the community.
[start page 1683]
Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires.
25 Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was
attacked.
.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I have a proposal to make which I think ought to
30 unite a good deal of the opinion that has been expressed. My proposal is that this power
to deal with claims against the Crown should not be inserted in the Constitution, but
should be given to the Federal Legislature. There can be no doubt, we all agree, that
the prerogative right to prevent justice being done is simply a barbarism, and ought
to be swept away in every country with responsible government.
35 .
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
CHAPTER II.
The Executive Government.
Clause 58-The executive power and authority of the Commonwealth is vented in the
40 Queen, and shall be exercised by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
Mr. REID: It will be observed that in clause 2 of chapter I. there is this provision:
The Queen may, from time to time, appoint a Governor-General, who shall be Her
Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and who shall have and may exercise in
the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, and subject to the provisions of this
45 Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may think fit to
assign to him.
I only call the attention of the Committee to that, and pass on to the clause now under
consideration. For a long time I have been impressed with the view that since we are now
expressing, in precise written characters, the various functions of the Governor, and
50 conditions under which the power of the Commonwealth is to be exercised, it would be
well in this clause, whilst providing that the Executive power and authority of the
p20 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Commonwealth shall be vested in the Queen, and shall be exercised by the Governor-
General as the Queen's representative, that we should add that which will in reality be the
practice, that it is by and with the advice of the Executive Council. Members will notice
that the legislative powers in the Queen are expressed under Statute as being exercised
5 with the consent of Parliament. The Queen sets her seal upon Acts, and it is attested in the
Acts themselves that they are by the authority and with the consent of the Parliament-that
is, the two Houses of Parliament. Now, I think we had better, since we are going to put in
black and white the full functions of the Commonwealth, state what I deem will be the
fact in practice, that the executive power is to be exercised by and with the advice of the
10 Executive Council. I have looked through the works on the prerogatives of the Crown,
and I find that they really came as far as anything in these colonies is concerned to the
question of the right to assemble, dissolve, and prorogue Parliament, the pardoning of
offenders, the issuing of proclamations, and so on. That is about the whole scope of the
prerogatives which [start page 909] could be exercised under this Commonwealth. In the
15 old country the Queen, of course, is the supreme head of the Church. That does not
apply here. She has the power of making war or peace. That does not apply here. I
am simply referring to things within the reach and range of this Constitution. In reference
to the right to assemble, prorogue, and dissolve Parliament, that is always done on the
advice and consent of the Executive Council. The refusal to receive advice is not an
20 executive act at all. An executive act is something which affects the subjects of the
country. The refusal to do it affects no one, except that it creates a crisis and would
probably effect a change of Ministers.
Mr. BARTON: It is an exercise of the prerogative.
Mr. REID: It is an exercise of the prerogative, which is not an executive act. The refusal
25 to accept advice does not fall within that category. The carrying out of the steps necessary
for the assembling or proroguing of Parliament would, and that would be with the advice
and consent of the Executive Council. There is not one appointment in the United
Kingdom which the Queen makes, but that the counter signature of a Minister of State is
required.
30 Mr. FRASER: How about a dissolution?
Mr. REID: Supposing Ministers ask for a dissolution, and the Governor says "no"; that is
not an executive act. It is a refusal to do an executive act. To issue a proclamation would
be an executive act. This difficulty would not arise. It would leave the independence of
the Governor as to accepting the advice of his Ministers absolutely intact. In England
35 nothing can reach the state of an act affecting the subjects, unless there is the signature of
a Minister to it. That is the practice all over the world under similar conditions. So I say
that if the British Constitution were being reduced to black and white, that might be put
in. If the British Constitution were being drawn up to-day, the main feature would be that
the Queen must act on the advice of responsible Ministers. The moment she does not you
40 have no constitutional Government at all.
Mr. SYMON: How about the appointment of Ministers?
Mr. REID: Some Ministers' appointments would have to be countersigned by a Minister.
Mr. SYMON: That is, the publication only.
Mr. REID: Yes; my honorable friend is quite right. Of course this comes afterwards. By
45 section 2 of chapter I., Her Majesty would assign that prerogative to the Governor,
amongst other prerogatives, which she would assign to him. That prerogative would
remain in the Governor under section 2, chapter I. This executive power and authority of
the Commonwealth is something different altogether from the prerogative of the Crown.
The executive power and authority of the Commonwealth is a thing which must be
50 exercised by Ministers. The other is a prerogative matter which is safeguarded by the
section I have referred to.
p21 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
An HON. MEMBER: What about the dismissal of Ministers?
Mr. REID: Even if Ministers are dismissed, they have to hold office until their
successors are appointed.
Mr. KINGSTON: Not dismissed; they resign.
5 Mr. REID: Yes; they hand in their resignations. But even if His Excellency exercised the
extreme prerogative, and dismissed them-a thing never heard of in these colonies-
supposing the Proclamation had to go out before the new Minister was sent for, could the
Governor dismiss them without a Minister?
Mr. SYMON: No; that would be done before the Minister left office.
10 Mr. REID: Exactly; that was what I was endeavoring to point out. But I do not want to
press this matter too strongly, because I quite admit that this Bill, as at [start page 910]
present, will ensure that the practice will be carried out. What necessity was there to put
in clause 2 that Her Majesty's representative could exercise Her Majesty's prerogative.
What reason was there for it?
15 Mr. SYMON: No reason at all.
Mr. REID: Well, it is put in. If we safeguard in this unnecessary way the prerogative of
Her Majesty, and the prerogative of the Governor-General, surely we can put in black and
white the principle of executive action which always is that the Governor shall act with
the advice of the Executive Council. Why could we not understand all this? What is the
20 use of putting it in at all? Did it not follow, as a mere matter of course, that if Her Majesty
appointed a Governor-General to represent her, he would exercise the powers which she
had and has? However, I do not press my suggestion, because it is practically in the
Constitution; but I would point out, that whilst we have been careful to put certain clauses
in the Constitution, I think others are of sufficient importance to be there.
25 Mr. BARTON: The hon. member has not moved in the matter, and as he admits that
what he desires is secured in section 61, which is an adaptation of what is in the South
Australian Constitution Act, and is somewhat similar to the Victorian Act, it is just as
well not to take up much time in debating it. Executive Acts of the Crown are primarily
divided into two classes: those exercised by the prerogative-and some of those are not
30 even Executive Acts-and those which are ordinary Executive Acts, where it is prescribed
that the Executive shall act in Council. These are the offsprings of Statutes. The others
are Acts so far as they are not affected by Statutes. Now there is no necessity to make any
alteration in this clause. The clause has been drafted in precisely the ordinary way-it was
similarly drafted in 1891-which is simply to express in a document of this character the
35 depository of the Executive power in the kingdom or the Commonwealth. Moreover there
is no necessity to add the words:
With the advice of the Governor in Council,
because in a constitution of this kind it is no more possible than it is under the English
Constitution for the prerogative to be exercised as a personal act of the Crown. The
40 prerogative is never in these days execised as a personal act of the Crown as we
understand it, but there are certain acts which have become, either by the gradual march
of statute law or in any other way, nothing but ordinary executive acts and these are
expressed to be exerciseable only with the advice of the Executive Council. There are
others again which have not been expressly affected by legislation, and while these
45 remain nominally in the exercise of the Crown they are really held in trust for the people,
although they are exercises of the prerogative. This is explained by Dicey in "The Law of
the Constitution," and the extract I will read will be followed with interest by lay as well
as by legal members.
Mr. REID: He was writing of an unwritten Constitution.
50 Dr. COCKBURN: Hear, hear.

p22 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Mr. BARTON: The Constitution of England is not wholly unwritten. A vast body of it is
in statute law, a vast body is unwritten. But let us understand that the Imperial Parliament
has in all its drafting of the Colonial Constitutions drawn the distinction. Yet it is
understood that the Crown exercises the prerogative only upon ministerial advice, and it
5 is exercised not personally by the Crown, but only with the advice of the Ministry or a
Minister. Every Constitution is explicit on that point. You do not find it anywhere in the
Australian Constitutions nor in the Canadian Constitution, which is written like this, that
there there is a prerogative act expressed to be exercised with the consent of the
Executive Council.
10 [start page 911]
But we all know that it is exercised with the advice of those who must answer to the
people. The point of the matter is that where the expression of the Act is in the form
commonly used to indicate prerogative act-that is without the addition of the words, "in
Council"-that does not indicate any real personal power in the depositary of the Crown's
15 authority. That is made clear by the passage I am about to read, and it applies just as
strongly to written Constitutions as to those Constitutions which are partly written and
partly unwritten. Dicey says:
The survival of the prerogative, conferring as it does wide discretionary authority upon
the Cabinet, involves a consequence which constantly escapes attention.
20 The survival of the prerogative really means that where the prerogative act is to be
exercised the Cabinet meets, and the Governor or the Queen cannot for a moment intrude.
The Cabinet, of course, is not expressed in any Constitution, but it is one of the living
powers which must exist in such a Constitution as this. The Cabinet meets and something
is determined, or where the Act does not require the assistance of the Cabinet, the
25 Minister determines to do it. In both these eases a formal resolution is passed by the
Executive Council with the Governor as chairman, or, when he is not there, with the
vice-president as chairman. That act is approved, and becomes the act of the Crown;
indeed, that process is the same where the act is the exercise of the prerogative, or where
it relates to one of those duties which is to be performed by the Governor or Queen in
30 Council. Dicey goes on:
It immensely increases the authority of the House of Commons and ultimately of the
constituencies by which that House is returned. Ministers must in the exercise of all
discretionary powers inevitably obey the predominant authority of the State. When the
King was the chief member of the sovereign body, Ministers were in fact no less than in
35 name the King's servants. At periods of our history when the Peers were the most
influential body in the country, the conduct of the Ministry represented with more or low
fidelity the wishes of the Peerage. Now that the House of Commons has become by far
the most important part of the sovereign body, the Ministry in all matters of discretion
carry out, or tend to carry out, the will of the House. When, however, the Cabinet cannot
40 act, except by means of legislation, other considerations come into play. A law requires
the sanction of the House of Lords. No Government can increase its statutory authority
without obtaining the sanction of the Upper Chamber. Thus an Act of Parliament when
passed represents, not the absolute wishes of the House of Commons, but those wishes as
modified by the influence of the House of Lords. The Peers no doubt will in the long run
45 conform to the wishes of the electorate. But the Peers may think that the electors will
disapprove of or, at any rate, be indifferent to a Bill which meets with the approval of the
House of Commons. Hence, while every action of the Cabinet which is done in virtue of
the prerogative is in fact, though not in name, under the direct control of the
representative chamber, all powers which can be exercised only in virtue of a statute are
50 more or less controlled in their creation by the House of Lords; they are further controlled
in their exercise by the interference of the courts.
p23 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Then also the Bill in 1872 for the abolition of the system of purchase in the army is
referred to; it is interesting, but I do not think I need read it at length. It will be
remembered by everybody that the Bill was rejected by the Lords, but that the system of
purchase should be abolished was ascertained to be the definite wish of the House of
5 Commons, and also of the people. The result of the rejection of the Bill by the Lords was
that Mr. Gladstone, who was then Premier, by royal warrant-a distinct exercise of the
prerogative-abolished the system of purchase in the army.
Mr. REID: If we can dish the Upper Houses that way, I am agreeable.
Mr. BARTON: From what I know of my friend it ought to suit him finely.
10 Mr. REID: Hear, hear. Down to the ground. But unfortunately our army is under an Act.
Mr. BARTON: Our federal army is not under an Act yet.
Mr. REID: Oh, I mean the local forces.
Mr. BARTON: This Bill having been rejected by the Lords, and the will of the [start
page 912] people and of the House of Commons having been distinctly ascertained, the
15 system was then and there abolished by royal warrant-an exercise of the prerogative.
Mr. REID: For which Mr. Gladstone was responsible; it was not a personal act of the
Queen.
Mr. BARTON: If the House of Commons or the people had been against the abolition of
this system, Mr. Gladstone would have paid the ordinary forfeit-loss of office.
20 Mr. FRASER: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: Which goes to show that the exercise of the prerogative, al. though there
is nothing in statute law to say it must be exercised on the advice of a minister, must still
take place on the advice of a minister, and that that minister is responsible for its exercise.
This is what the author says to some of these matters:
25 The change, it will probably be conceded, met with the approval, not only of the
Commons, but of the electors. But it will equally be conceded that, bad the alteration
required statutory authority, the system of purchase might have continued in force up to
the present day.
****
30 The existence of the prerogative enabled the Ministry in this particular instance to
give immediate effect to the wishes of the electors, and this is the result which, under
the circumstances of modern politics, the survival of the prerogative will in every
instance produce. The prerogatives of the Crown have become the privileges of the
people.
35 Mr. REID: Hear, hear.
And anyone who wants to see how widely these privileges may conceivably be stretched
as the House of Commons becomes more and more the direct representative of the true
Sovereign,
being a Sovereign Chamber itself, mind:
40 Should weigh well the words in which Bagehot describes the powers which can still
legally be exercised by the Crown without consulting Parliament; and remember that
these powers can now be exercised by a Cabinet who are really servants, not of the
Crown, but of the representative Chamber, which in its turn obeys the behests of the
electors.
45 Then there is a passage from Bagehot's book on the English Constitution, pages 35-6 of
the introduction, which I might as well read also, because it will tend to shorten argument
on my part:
I said in this book that it would very much surprise people if they were only told how
many things the Queen could do without consulting Parliament, and it certainly has
50 so proved, for when the Queen abolished purchase in the army by an act of prerogative

p24 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
(after the Lords had rejected the Bill for doing so) there was a great and general
astonishment.
Astonishment at the fact that a Minister could exercise the powers of the Crown by
merely advising the Queen to issue her royal warrant. He goes on:
5 But this is nothing to what the Queen can by law do without consulting Parliament. Not
to mention other things, she could disband the army (by law she cannot engage more than
a certain number of men, but she is not obliged to engage any men); she could dismiss all
the officers, from the general commanding-in-chief downwards; she could dismiss all the
sailors too; she could send off all our ships of war and all our naval stores; she could
10 make a peace by the sacrifice of Cornwall, and begin a war for the conquest of Brittany.
She could make every citizen in the United Kingdom, male or female, a peer; she could
make every parish in the United Kingdom a "university;" she could dismiss most of the
civil servants; she could pardon all offenders. In a word, the Queen could by prerogative
upset all the action of civil government within the government, could disgrace the
15 nation by a bad peace or war, and could, by disbanding our forces, whether land or sea,
leave us defenceless against foreign nations.
All that Dicey has to add to that is this:
If Government by Parliament is ever transtransformed into Government by the House of
Commons, the transformation will, it may be conjectured, be effected by use of the
20 prerogatives of the Crown.
All that passage goes to show this, that every prerogative which the Queen retains is
retained in trust for the people, and it does not matter whether she is told in the Statute
that she is to exercise that prerogative by the advice of the Executive Council or not, if
she is given the power in the Statute she can only exercise that power of prerogative by
25 and on the advice of the Ministers. In other words, if you have a Statute embodying a
Constitution, or if you have a Constitution in [start page 913] which the moving power is
responsible government, in one case or the other, whether acting as a prerogative or in
Executive, there must be a Minister responsible for the action to the people. And that is
the principle embodied in this Bill as drawn. We shall be told if we alter the drafting of it
30 in this particular, if we say we are not aware of the distinction between the Acts which are
assumed to be prerogative and which cannot be received without Executive advice, if we
say that we do not know the distinction between these, we shall be told how the
distinction would be made every time. The words:
With the advice of the Federal Council
35 would be struck out and the words:
The Queen
or
The Governor-General
would be left. There will be this little further result: We shall be told that we did not know how to draft an
40 Act of Parliament because we did not have sufficient constitutional knowledge. It is all very well for my
hon. friend to propose an amendment, but if the Bill is accepted as drawn he can take this conclusion: that
all executive powers must be in trust for the people, because every Constitution has been workable only by
responsible government. As there is at the end of clause 61 provision which makes what my hon. friend
desires safeguarded there is no more contest needed about the matter. We have provided in clause 61 that
45 officers shall be members of the Federal Executive Council and shall be the Queen's Ministers of the State
for the Commonwealth; that after the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer
period than three calendar months, unless he shall be or become a member of one of the Houses of
Parliament; and that Ministers of State shall be in the Parliament, and that is the hold by which Parliament,
if there were no other hold, would make them responsible to the people. This Act, as it was, would have
50 made the Ministers responsible to the people, and have given us cabinet government responsible to the
people. I do not think there is need for further discussion. We can take the clause as drawn.
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-It is rather a new feature in the proceedings of this Convention that
any body should call for a division without bearing both sides of the question. After we have spent seven
p25 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
weeks in our deliberations such a novelty comes with the refreshment of a cool sea breeze. I am certainly
not going to waste any of the time of the Convention. I have very few words to say about this matter. I wish
only to speak to the point. It is perfectly competent for any Minister under responsible government, such as
we have it, to secure for the people through their Executive Council every control that my learned friend
5 wishes to obtain, that is to say, every control of the entire management and administration of the
department for which the Minister is responsible. In the Imperial Constitution, much of which is unwritten,
there is no necessity for a provision of this kind in order to insure that the prerogative shall be administered
in trust for the people, and it is laid down by every constitutional writer whose word is worth having that
every prerogative of the Crown is now administered in trust for the people, [start page 2253] which means,
10 and is stated to mean, that it is administered by the advice of a responsible Minister. It is quite true that in a
most exceptional way the Commandant in New South Wales once offered to the Governor a battery of
troops to serve out of the colony. I believe that the Commandant would not at all have been impressed by
the particularity of adding the words "in Council " to the word "Governor" in any Act dealing with the
subject. The person who made that offer would have made it under any circumstances. The question is, is
15 there sufficient power, as matters stand, to prevent such things from being done, and to insure punishment,
if necessary, for their being done? In the minute to which my learned friend has referred, Sir Henry Parkes
recognised that power by saying this-
The military forces have been called into existence by the Parliament, and are paid out of the revenue of the
colony, and they are as much subject to the control of the responsible Government existing in this colony as
20 any other branch of the public service.
That is clear enough, I think.
I lay this down as an indisputable principle, and in future I must treat any violation of this principle by the
Commandant as I should treat any similar violation of the principle by any other servant of the
Government.
25 Why? Although the Governor is, under the prerogative, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, although he
is so styled in the Governor's instructions, even under a Constitution like that of New South Wales, which
does not mention the powers and functions of the Governor, who only derives his powers and functions
from his commission and instructions, how can a Military Commandant be appointed except by the
Governor in Council? It is by the Governor in Council that he is appointed, without any words of this kind
30 in the Constitution to necessitate it at all. Appointments to that, as to other positions, are made by the
Governor in Council, which means the Executive, and the determination of the Executive means the
determination of the Cabinet, into which no Governor can intrude any more under the law of Now
South Wales than he could under the law of this Constitution. But the man who is appointed by the
Governor in Council-that is to say, by the Executive; that is again to say, by the Cabinet-may be removed
35 for misconduct by the authority which appointed him. It simply comes to this: On the advice of a Minister,
if the matter is sufficient to lay before the Cabinet, the Cabinet decides that the official shall be removed,
and it could be done in that ease. What happens then? An Executive minute is prepared, in which the
Minister recommends the removal of the officer; that minute is adopted in the Executive Council, over
which the Governor presides, and the Governor in Council has then removed the man. That you can do
40 under a Constitution which does not contain the words "in Council" at all, simply because the power which
appoints can remove. The officer may be under an engagement, but if he is under an engagement, who
makes the engagement with him except the Executive, which is the Governor in Council? He cannot be
removed so as to break an engagement, except at the risk of giving him some compensation. If you put in
the words "in Council," you would not alter the legal position by so much as a hair's breadth. The matter
45 really comes to this: There are certain prerogative rights which have been long demitted or got rid of by
statute or by other practice-generally by statute-and in any statute drafted the words "in Council" are
inserted. There are certain other prerogative rights which, not having been the subject of such demission, as
it is sometimes called, I believe, not having been given up in any way, apparently, are not so described in a
statute. There are certain prerogative rights-this was all gone into at Adelaide, and decided by the
50 Convention according to the contention I am advocating -which are not described in [start page 2254] a
statute as rights of the Governor in Council, simply because no statute has ever dealt with them, and
because they belong to that part of the prerogative which has never been nominally given up by the Crown.
Of such is the power to summon and dissolve Parliament, to which no one who understood these
matters would dream of adding the words "in Council." But yet these rights can never be exercised
55 without the advice of a responsible Minister, and if that advice is wrongly given it is the Minister who
suffers. Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it is
that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds that
prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or peace without
the advice of a responsible Minister. Wherefore, we all came to the conclusion, as constitutional
60 writers have long come to the conclusion, that the prerogative is given in trust for the people, and is,
therefore, only exercised at the instance of a responsible Minister. I should like to know whether

p26 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
there would not be a revolution in England if the Queen chose to declare war or to make peace
without the sanction or advice of a responsible Minister? That would be as absolutely gross an
infraction of the Constitution as an attempt to abolish the House of Commons, as the advent of a second
Protector, not only taking away the bauble, but taking all those who surrounded it. Do we not then come to
5 this conclusion, that the Constitution is absolutely safe in this form as we understand it, that you can
not have a prerogative of the Crown in these modern days which can be exercised without the advice
of a responsible Minister if a responsible Minister chooses to advise? Why, then, are we to alter all the
settled forms, which are those we understand and know, and which are constantly acted upon in the
administrative government of England and of our own colonies, because occasionally there has been a
10 Minister so unread as not to understand these matters, or so weak as not to enforce his powers? If Ministers
were like the late Sir Henry Parkes, a stand such as he took would be sufficient, and is sufficient in New
South Wales. I understand that upon (occasions a power which I certainly would not like to see exercised is
exercised by the Commandant of the forces in New South Wales. I am not attacking that gentleman, who is
an exceedingly able and gallant officer. If any man wishes to make an inroad into the Constitution, or does
15 not fully understand his position in a self-governing colony, he will make a mistake, whether you do or do
not put into the Constitution words of this kind. If you send your Draft Bill home with these words in it, I
shall not be answerable for the opinions passed upon our drafting. We shall be told that we ought to
understand that the matter is sufficiently regulated by constitutional usage already, and that the prerogative
which is nominally vested in the Queen, is actually wielded by the Cabinet.
20 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GLYNN.-The Federal Parliament can affect the prerogative, but only within the limits prescribed by
this Act.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
25 The question has been asked whether the Parliament cannot make laws affecting the prerogative.
The answer is-"Yes" and "No." The Parliament can make laws affecting the prerogative in respect of
any matter in which it has express power of legislation or a power necessarily implied. It cannot
make laws affecting the prerogative in matters with respect to which it has no power to make laws.
Defence Act 1903

30 Requirement for War


It should also be noted that Governor-General may only
issue such a proclamation in 'time of war'. The Defence
Act defines 'war' and 'time of war' as: "War" -Means any
invasion or apprehended invasion of, or attack or
35 apprehended attack on, Australia by an enemy or armed
force. "Time of War" -Means any time during which a
state of war actually exists, and includes the time
between the issue of a proclamation of the existence of
war or of danger thereof and the issue of a proclamation
40 declaring that the war or danger thereof, declared in the
prior proclamation, no longer exists.
.
Again;
Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of which it
45 is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not present, holds
that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen would declare war or
peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
.
The Defence Act 1903 may be seen to dictate when there is a war but as it is a PREROGATIVE POWER to declare
50 war or peace, then there is no constitutional powers for the parliament to legislate in any way how the Governor-
General can exercise such prerogative powers.
It is another matter for example where the Governor-General issue writs in according to legislative provisions as
then the Governor-General does not exercise prerogative powers where the writs are issued in accordance with the
p27 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
request of the Federal Executive to hold a general election and so then the conduct of the Governor-General can be
set out in legislation. However, where the Governor-General exercises prerogative powers to call for double
dissolution HE CAN DO SO WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY ANY LEGISLATION WHERE IT COMES TO
EXERCISING PREROGATIVE POWERS!
5 The issue therefore is to be aware when the Governor-General acts in exercise of prerogative powers and when the
Governor-General acts in capacity as provided for in legislation.
.
Also, as is shown the queen has no constitutional powers to declare WAR or PEACE concerning the
Commonwealth of Australia as this has been transferred to the Governor-General and the Governor-General and not
10 the Queen is the Commander in Chief of Australian forces.
.
Therefore it doesn’t matter if the Queen authorised British troops to invade Iraq with or without consent of the
United Nations as the Monarch it was within the powers of Her Majesty to authorise this where as Her majesty has
no such position regarding the Commonwealth of Australia as then the Governor-General occupies this position.
15 .
Likewise, the Queen is the head of the Church in the United Kingdom but the Governor -General position is not as
such and the Queens religious position does not apply as such in the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
The following are some of the quotations of my latest published book;
20 LEGAL REALITY (Part 1)
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 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
25 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 Australia committed
TREASON.
There can be no doubt that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) provides that the High
Court of Australia is the Court to interpret the Constitution, it shall be the court to finally determine what is
30 constitutionally applicable, but this is now the issue, did the High Court of Australia do so in Sue v Hill, or did the
judges act without jurisdiction to interpret An unconstitutional substitute constitution instead?
.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
"In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
35 good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy."
.
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
40 Mr. ISAACS:
There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line
would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of
responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child
of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the
45 liberties of our people-then,
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
50 And
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That
would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
And
55 Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place
where the contract was made.
And
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
are intimately allied to this question.
60 And

p28 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of
their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the
subject-matter of them, it can do so.
5 .
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the
just interpretation of the Constitution:
10 .
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right
in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
15 .
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. OCONNOR .-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
20 Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to
25 wipe it out."
And
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
30 incidental to a power given.
.
LEGAL REALITY (Part 2)
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 are all alike
35 subjects of the British Crown.
.
HANSARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. CLARK:
What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under their
40 own governments.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
45 And
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.
And
50 Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
55 And
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.
60 .
p29 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
And
5 Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
10 And
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new
charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and
confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of
15 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.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
20 We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution.
. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is
appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution
25 of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by
slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation
that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the
highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution,
will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
30 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the
states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
35 .
Also to consider;
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) (See Folder 33 of the CD)
40 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a
dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not
propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
.
45 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) (See Folder 33 of the CD)
Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is admitted to
political rights at the will of the Commonwealth, and upon such terms as the Commonwealth may
impose. Every person who has rights as a member of the Commonwealth must be a citizen either of
50 some state or some territory. It is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory that he
has any political rights in the Commonwealth.
And
Mr. OCONNOR.-
Now, in regard to the citizens of the states-that is, those who are here already, apart from these laws-
55 every citizen of a state having certain political rights is entitled to all the rights of citizenship in the
Commonwealth, necessarily without a definition at all.
And
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-
. I am impressed with the importance of taking power as occasion arises to define what shall
60 constitute citizenship of the Commonwealth; and the Bill at present is altogether deficient in regard
to giving any power to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate on this subject.
p30 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
And
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That the citizens of the states are the citizens of the Commonwealth. That is the fundamental
principle we must have regard to, and I ask my honorable friend to say whether a citizen of the
5 Commonwealth is not a citizen of the state?
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) (See Folder 33 of the CD)
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
10 operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
15 citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a
citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this
clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr.
O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and
20 one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to
be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the
citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do
that with precision and clearness.
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in
25 the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right
of depriving me of citizenship.
I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a 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.
30 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify,
or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are
35 subject to disabilities, as aliens, 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 (New South Wales).-We have provided in this Constitution for the exercise of the rights of
40 citizenship, so far as the choice of representatives is concerned, and we have given various safe-guards to
individual liberty in the Constitution. We have, therefore, given each resident in the Commonwealth his
political rights, so far as the powers of legislation and administration intrusted to the Commonwealth are
concerned. Let us consider the position. Before the establishment of the Commonwealth, each subject is the
subject of a state. After the Commonwealth is established, every one who acquires political rights-in fact,
45 every one who is a subject in a state, having certain political rights, has like political rights in the
Commonwealth. The only difference between the position before the institution of the Commonwealth and
afterwards is that, so far as there are additional political powers given to any subject or citizen, be has the
right to exercise these, and the method of exercising them is defined. So far the right of citizenship, if
there is a right of citizenship under the empire, is defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a
50 state is, without definition, a citizen of the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be
applied to a subject of the empire. I must admit, after looking at a standard authority-Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary-that I cannot find any definition of citizenship as applied to a British subject. No such term as
citizen or citizenship is to be found in the long roll of enactments, so far as I can recollect, that deal
with the position of subjects of the United Kingdom, and I do not think we have been in the habit of
55 using that term under our own enactments in any of our colonies.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You had it in the Draft Bill.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to objections from
members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is right in not applying [start page
1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to
60 their ordinary definition as subjects of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character,
inasmuch as citizens of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the

p31 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Constitution, we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other.
If you once admit that a citizen or subject of the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth,
the power conferred in these wide terms would enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the
5 political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think the honorable member intends to go so far as
that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.
Mr. HOWE.-Trust to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. BARTON.-When we confer a right of legislation on the Federal Parliament we trust them to exercise it
with wisdom, but we still keep as the subject of debate the question of whether a particular legislative right
10 should be conferred on the Federal Parliament. When you give them the right then you may trust them to
exercise it fully.
Mr. HOWE.-And wisely.
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have 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
15 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 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
20 those rights even within the very narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth
nothing; or of 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 of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and
25 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 ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term
"Trust the Federal Parliament."
30 .
The issue is not "We decide who come into Australia" but rather "We decide by JUDICIAL
DECISION and by DUE PROCESS OF LAW who shall come into Australia!.
.
Now having Australians detained/deported unconstitutionally/unlawfully underlines the need for
35 a proper investigation to what I consider the maniac who was authorising an armed invasion into
the sovereign nation Iraq such as on the non existing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
excuse.
Never again should the Commonwealth of Australia go down that way. However, with the new
leader of the Opposition Mr. Brendan Nelson having admitted to lie when he claimed
40 previously on a demonstration never to have voted liberal, when being a member of the
Australian Labor Party, underlines that we have another leader of that party who is willing to lie
when is may suit him and we could have such a person next being Prime Minister. The issue was
not who he voted for when a member of whatever party but that he lied about it and seek to
excuse this in the manner he did. The Liberal party didn’t need to hire actors for its propaganda
45 advertising against unions, they could have used Brandan Nelson as a real union official and how
he went about to express it all.
.
The lies conveyed to people to vote for a Prime Minister when constitutionally this is impossible
also should be investigated as after all the Governor-General and no one else decide who is will
50 be Prime Minister.
.
Because many people like to have a REPUBLIC it is essential that the ROYAL COMMISSION
does expose the truth as many may pursue the option of a REPUBLIC as if this will resolve
many issues where in fact it more then likely will be worse. In that regard the stand-by leader of
55 the Liberal Party Malcolm Turnbull also must be taken with great caution as after all he was the

p32 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
leader in the Australian Republic Movement which I held was deceiving the people about how to
achieve a REPUBLIC as did the Monarchist about the constitutional position.
.
For this the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN could address many issues and could set out what
5 it views were as to how to become a REPUBLIC in a constitutional permissible manner, etc. and
how to deal with the current de facto form of DICTATORSHIP!
.
Most Australians never realised that Aboriginals by virtue of the 1967 con-job referendum
amendment to Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution now have been relegated to be
10 constitutionally an inferior coloured race and they no longer can claim equality with other
Australians. Neither can they exercise any citizenship rights, such as franchise.
This is a reality overlooked and for this it is important that this issue as well as the
unconstitutional intervention legislation are investigated by no less then a ROYAL
COMMISSION and they can walk again among us as equals.
15 .
Likewise, should the pork barrelling of the Coalition be investigated by ROYAL
COMMISSION as while Section 101 of the Constitution specifically provides for the Inter-
State Commission to deal with matters as it deems in the best interest of the State, we now have
that politicians are abusing and misusing Consolidated Revenue Funds to side step the Inter-
20 State Commission and to promise moneys as I view it as a bribery, in mainly marginal seats and
this totally undermines the structure of representation for which the Commonwealth was created
for.
While the numerous facets of investigation by a ROYAL COMMISSION may seem to be too
much, reality is that the cost of a ROYAL COMMISSION may be far less then the misuse of
25 taxpayers funded political advertising the former Coalition government engaged in.
Indeed, a ROYAL COMMISSION also ought to investigate the conduct within the Federal
Parliament why members are denied (such as with WorkChoices legislation) a copy of the Bill
they are to vote upon and why the budget is handed down in may just prior to the commencement
of the new financial year which denied the constitutional process as prescribed in Section 57 of
30 the Constitution, if this is needed to be followed.
In addition to the above stated I will now quote some emails to further support a wide ranging
ROYAL COMMISSION, albeit this correspondence is not intended and neither must be
perceived to address all issues and all relevant details as more is applicable, as set out in my
many published books as well as books due to be published.
35 QUOTE 10November 2007 email
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:10:25 +1100 (EST)
"Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
From:
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com.au.
Subject: Re: CONSTITUTION --- ATTACK ON IRAQ
To: "Alfaros" <alfaros@bigpond.com>
CC: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Pedro,
thank you for your comments albeit I do disagree with the ascertains you made. I will include below two e-mails of
recent which may show to you that I am well aware that both Bush and Blair acted with lawful authority by their
respective Parliaments but Howard never did and by this both Bush and Blair still can face charges.
40 Do understand that the United Nations is not some authority that can override COMMONWEALTH OF
AUSTRALIA's constitutional provisions! It is merely existing by agreement of Governments. As such, not only did
the UN not sanction the invasion in March 2003 but even if it had done so it would have not made one of iota
difference in that regard in respect of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I will be looking forwards to your reply, and your outset why you hold that I overlooked certain legal issues for
45 consideration!
.
Gerrit
QUOTE

p33 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Date:Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:22:12 +1100 (EST)
From "Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
: Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com.au.
Subj
Re: Fw: CONSCRIPTION - FYI
ect:
To: "John Wilson" <jhwilson@acay.com.au>
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au, "Paul Dignon" <pauldignon@iprimus.com.au>, jvrevolove@hotmail.com,
johann5@ozonline.com.au, poetrylark@yahoo.com, hunterman@goconnect.net, niksfree@aanet.com.au,
CC: alfaros@bigpond.com, swulrich@bigpond.net.au, cap1@halenet.com.au, ariley@coolcats.net.au,
jcl18502@bigpond.net.au, csgroup@iprimus.com.au, globalsov@gmail.com, csgroups@iprimus.com.au,
srd_one@yahoo.com.au, dannyandcorealestate@hotmail.com, eireuklk@bigpond.com
John,
While the legislation may dictate what a war is or isn't ultimately the principles embedded in the Constitution
decides what it is.
Constitutionally, unless there is an actual attack upon the commonwealth of australia the minister of Defence (and
5 not the prime minister at all) can only exercise powers if and only if the Governor-General has published in the
Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. As such where this did not eventuate in 2003 there was no constitutional
validity for john howard to authorise the amred invasion into iraq by Australian troops. Anzus cannot over ride the
Constitution and neither the United Nations, even if they had authorised such an invasion!
As to exemptions;
10 QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
15 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re; "religious objection" (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ) offend Section 116 if
20 the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate that while using the
"religious objection" referred to in subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider
that this subsection 14 limits an objection only to an "theistic belief" based "religious objection" but in fact it also
25 includes any secular belief based "religious objection", as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds
for an "objection". This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia to limit the
scope of subsection 245(14) to only "theistic belief" based "religious objections". Therefore, any person having a
purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of "religious objection" have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an "religious objection" requires to state his/her religion, and neither
30 which part of his/her religion provides for a "religious objection" as the mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute
what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a "religious objection". Therefore, the wording "religious
objection" is to be taken as "objection" without the word "religion" having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
35 Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
.
In view that in the USA there is also a prohibition to legislate in regard of religion then the equivalent Authority can
be relied upon.
40 116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
45 under the Commonwealth.
As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an invasion as to his rights.
Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
50 religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for

p34 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
5 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
10 words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354 -356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
15 conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
20 extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.
And;
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
25 Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

30 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
exemption to be challenged.
And
35 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple;
do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
40 Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They
are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
What appears to be clear is that a "religious objection" is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as this
would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as this
45 would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the "religious
objection" Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the "religious objection" applies as much to non
religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is
50 entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
.
Apply this to exclusion on religious grounds and you find it unconstitutional if it does not include exclusion on
secual grounds!
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the
55 USA;
http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdic tion.htm
 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law
constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute,
60 to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to
be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
p35 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates
from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
5 statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been
enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers
no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and
justifies no acts performed under it. . .
10 A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of
the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
15 Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Quick & Garran's "Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" more accurately and more
meaningfully says that;
"A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no law; it is wholly void and
inoperative; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protection.".
20 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GORDON.-
Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the
whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
Again;
25 and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires.
Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked. It might
injure a few individuals, but that might be to the benefit of the whole. Or if it were not, the party whose area
30 of power was infringed on would attack if.
Again;
It would remain a law until it was attacked.
Clearly, once I objected to the constitutional validity of the proclamation, writ(s), election, etc then from that
moment it was and remained ULTRA VIRES.
35 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GLYNN.-The Federal Parliament can affect the prerogative, but only within the limits prescribed by
this Act.
And
Mr. SYMON.-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the Commonwealth
40 Parliament was ultra vires?
Mr. GORDON.-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that law it would remain
in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of acquiescence. And here is another
point. The proposal which I am supporting, to some extent keeps a remnant of parliamentary sovereignty
over the strict interpretation of the courts.
45 Mr. FRASER.-That is too abstruse for laymen altogether.
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the
court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a
good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I
50 do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
As such, not rights or duties can be achieved if the law is unconstitutional. It is from the moment a person formally
object to it being ultra vires, until athe High Court of Australia pronounced otherwise.
.
55 Gerrit

John Wilson <jhwilson@acay.com.au> wrote:


#yiv1366789655 st1\:* {}

p36 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Dear Paul,

JURIES NULLIFY BAD LAWS.


Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
5 ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Dignon

To: Undisclosed Group

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:09 AM


Subject: CONSCRIPTION - FYI

Makes you think, doesn’t it?


10 Many Regards

P.M. DIGNON

National Coordinator

The Sea of Orange

United we Stand
15 Tel: (08) 8277 2069

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen J Petersen [mailto:petersaj@bigpond.net.au]
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2007 1:38 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
20 Subject: CONSCRIPTION - FYI

From: Bodey L & R


Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2007 11:06 PM
Subject: Conscription ? FYI
How Can Conscription be Introduced?
25 Proclamation
As noted, conscription was abolished by law in 1973. But
the Defence Act 1903 as amended retained a provision
that it could be reintroduced by proclamation of the
Governor-General. Potentially all Australian residents
30 between the ages of 18 and 60 could be called up in this
way. However, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act
1992 further provided that any such proclamation is of no
p37 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
effect until it is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Though actual legislation is not required, the effect of this
provision is to make the introduction of conscription
impossible without the approval of both the Senate and
5 the House of Representatives. Thus, it would be subject
to the same political requirements as would a specific Act
of Parliament. In present circumstances the Government
would require the support of either the Labor Opposition
or the Australian Democrats to obtain the necessary
10 Senate resolution.
Requirement for War
It should also be noted that Governor-General may only
issue such a proclamation in 'time of war'. The Defence
Act defines 'war' and 'time of war' as: "War" -Means any
15 invasion or apprehended invasion of, or attack or
apprehended attack on, Australia by an enemy or armed
force. "Time of War" -Means any time during which a
state of war actually exists, and includes the time
between the issue of a proclamation of the existence of
20 war or of danger thereof and the issue of a proclamation
declaring that the war or danger thereof, declared in the
prior proclamation, no longer exists.
There would, therefore, appear to be significant doubt as
to whether it is legally possible to reintroduce conscription
25 at the present time in order to support the deployment to
Timor, which arguably does not satisfy the definitions
specified. Further amendments to the Defence Act might
be needed before it would even be possible to issue a
proclamation. However, the remainder of this paper will
30 assume for the purposes of argument that these
objections can be met.
Conscription Mechanisms
Conscription for military service can be either universal
within a specific age group or selective by some criterion
35 and/or by gender. The selective scheme used for the
Vietnam war rendered all 20-year-old males potentially
liable, but actually selected only those whose birth dates
were drawn in ballots held each six months.

p38 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Certain classes of individual (e.g., theological students)
were automatically exempt, while others (e.g., students
undertaking tertiary courses) could obtain deferments of
their liability. It was also possible to gain exemption by
5 joining the then Citizen Military Forces (CMF), now known
as the Army Reserve. In practice this latter exemption
had the unfortunate effect of filling up the Reserve with
thousands of reluctant members primarily interested in
evading fulltime military service and the possibility of
10 being sent to Vietnam. This resulted in considerable
dilution of the Army Reserve's quality.
Conscientious Objection
Exemption could also be gained by registering as a
Conscientious Objector (CO). The objection, which had to
15 be to all wars-not just a particular war-had to be proved
to a magistrate before exemption would be granted.
The 1992 Defence Legislation Amendment Act, however,
changed the conscientious objection provisions so that
objection to a particular war became an acceptable
20 ground for exemption. It also reshaped the machinery for
dealing with applications for CO status. Conscientious
Objection Tribunals would be established, each consisting
of three members. Presiding members must be legal
practitioners of at least seven years standing (they do not
25 have to be magistrates) , the other two members need
not be legally qualified. The onus of proof rests with the
applicant for CO status. The likely effect of the more
liberal CO provisions is noted below.
http://www.aph. gov.au/Library/ Pubs/cib/ 1999-2000/
30 2000cib07. htm#how
__._,_.___
/ym/Compose?To=TPINET4-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com&Subj=

35
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® 107 Graham
Road Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph/Fax 03-94577209 International
61394577209 . "CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. .
p39 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)
A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
See also website; http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and . Blog;
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .
"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY
HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" (By; Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka) . You may not
5 agree with some of my views and neither may I with some of yours but we ought
work together to perhaps make it to be "our view" others may be able to accept
also! (Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka)
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:00:51 +1100 (EST)
"Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
From:
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com.au.
Subject: Jenny Macklin, ROYAL COMMISSION, BOYCOTT, ELECTION ISSUES, ETC
To: JMacklin.MP@aph.gov.au
CC: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
10 Please note enclosed a copy of the fax already forwarded on 9-11-2007
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Jenny Macklin (Former MP) 9 November 2007
Phone 9459 1411
Fax (03) 9457 5721 Ref; Your correspondence dated 7 November 2007, etc
15 .
Cc; Mr Ian Campbell, Australian Electoral Commissioner
.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
20 Jenny,
How nice for you to write to me with your 7 November 2007 correspondence about "Kevin Rudd’s Tax Plan for
Australia’s Future.
.
As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I was indeed interested to hear what Kevin Rudd had to say and to me it seemed
25 above board, so to say, as to what constitutionally permissible.
Just that I am concerned about your correspondence in that it has the heading;
"Jenny Macklin MP
Federal Member for Jagajaga
Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services
30 Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs & Reconciliation."
.
Firstly, I understood, but you may prove me wrong, that on 17 October 2007 at 12 noon the Governor-General had
dissolved the House of Representatives by way of Gazette S208, at least that is the copy of the proclamation I
obtained signed on 14 October 2007 by the said Governor-General. It is my understanding that when the Governor-
35 General dissolves a House of Parliament then all Members of that House that is dissolved stop being Members of
Parliament. If there is a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION, then also all Senators loose their seats and are no longer
Members of parliament either from the time of dissolution of the Senate, while ordinary where the election for the
Senate are held prior to the 6-year term expiring (or if it is by ballot 3-years after a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) the
Senators remain sitting Members of Parliament not just during the election being held but up to the time that their
40 period has expired. Hence, as I understand it Natasha Stott Despoja no longer will contest her Senate seat but will
remain to be a Senator until 1 July 2008.
Again, I invite you to prove me wrong.
.
QUOTE
Out of Office AutoReply: Re; Defective writs - defective proclamation- farmers- Telstra legislation- prices-
Subject:
etc
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:18:17 +1100
From: "Edwards, Graham (MP)" <Graham.Edwards.MP@aph.gov.au>
To: "Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
45 As of noon the 17th of October I am no longer a Member of Parliament.
Please redirect your email to maurene.palmer@aph.gov.au. If the issue is relating to the election or a constituen
matter she will follow it up for you. If the matter is personal Maurene will provide you with my personal email
address and contact details.

p40 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Cheers and best wishes

Graham Edwards
5 END QUOTE
.
Again;
As of noon the 17th of October I am no longer a Member of Parliament.
.
10 As such, you are no longer a Member of Parliament and neither therefore can be an MP and neither "Federal
Member for Jagajaga".
Again, you can prove me wrong, if you desire to do so.
.
Recently, I wrote to the Australian electoral Commission about many former Members of Parliament portraying to
15 be still Members of Parliament and that this was of concern as this is in my view deceiving electors and undermines
a FAIR and PROPER election to be held.
More over, the envelope shows "POSTAGE PAID AUSTRALIA" but how on earth can taxpayers pay for you to
send out correspondences, regardless if they are nicely worded or not?
Also, who paid for the printing of the correspondence?
20 .
Further, your letter head also refers to;
"Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs & Reconciliation."
.
25 Well, excuse me but can you point out how you can be a "Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services"
and a "Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs & Reconciliation." when you are not even a Member of Parliament?
.
More over, last I read the Constitution it stated;
.
30 64 Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth
as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the
Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for
35 the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months
unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
.
40 For so far I know therefore you are not appointed as a Minister or Shadow Minister by the Governor-General as you
did not appears to be a Member of the Federal Executive. Sure, there might be "conventions" that all kind of
unconstitutional positions may be created but it cannot and doesn’t override the constitutional provisions and/or
limitations. Hence, for some time in my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I have canvassed
the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the
45 People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations.
So many are bragging about all the lawyers that are/were in the Parliament, yet somehow they haven’t even got a
clue about what is constitutionally applicable as to being a Member of Parliament as if they did they would unlikely
have deliberately been using tax payers monies to send out their parties material and/or that of themselves. After all,
if a person no longer is a Member of Parliament because the seats are vacant then I view it would be fraud to have
50 taxpayers paying for their campaigning for an election. Even the political offices provided to a Member of
Parliament should not be used once a seat is declared vacant, and certainly not for gaining some advantage upon
other candidates who has to fork out of their own pockets, so to say, all cost to electioneer.
Also while the postage marking stated "POSTAGE PAID AUSTRALIA", I am not aware that the Continent of
Australia would pay for postage. Again you can prove me wrong. There is however a "Commonwealth of Australia"
55 or for short "The Commonwealth" but clearly that is not what the postage elude to.
.
Now constitutionally (The Constitution) provides for;
48 Allowance to members
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each
60 member of the House of Representatives shall receive an
allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the

p41 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
day on which he takes his seat.
.
66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated
5 Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the
Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament
otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a
year.
.
10 A member of the House of Parliament only is eligible to get an "allowance" from the day he/she takes up the seat,
not from when declared to be elected by the Australian Electoral Commission, this, as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear that a successful candidate might in the end decide not to accept the seal declared elected for
when the writs are returned. As such, if say you were elected again you would still have to wait until you take up the
seat in parliament before you would be entitled to an "allowance", not a "salary". As the framers of the Constitution
15 made clear, Members of Parliament would get an "allowance" for being away from their ordinary daily job and to
compensate them for having to travel to the parliament and be there at loss of income of their ordinary profession.
Hence, many Members of the Parliament are UNEMPLOYED, where they do not have a private employment
and/or business. Perhaps Kevin Rudd recognises this and for this made clear time and again in recent weeks that he
is UNEMPLOYED!
20 At least he (Kevin Rudd) is honest about it. However, he is the leader of the Australian labour party but not the
leader of Her Majesty Opposition in that the parliament is prorogued and there is no opposition in place.
.
Care should be taken that "shall not be less than 23 days…after the date of the nomination" means 23 clear days
th
(as the Court ruled in the past from midnight to midnight is one day) and so the 24 day is the first day (if on a
25 Saturday) a poll can be held and failing this to be a Saturday then the next following Saturday is the polling date.
As I presented in my successful cases on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria, "shall not be less than"
means (case law) that not until the number of 23 days have been fully completed can action be taken.
QUOTE
22. In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule
30 that "not less than" so many days refers to clear days – "unless the context or the statutory intention reveals
a contrary intention".
END QUOTE
.
ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161
35 The authority state:
The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by
one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
.
Here the Court held that the period of 14 days for the notice in that case had been one day short and the
40 notice therefore was invalid! The notice had to be considered from midnight to midnight of each day and
not part of a day! As such, midnight of 1 November 2007 to midnight 24 November 2007 is 23 days.
.
1 November closing of nominations
.
45 1st day 2 November 2007 Friday (declaration of candidates) (start counting for polling day)
nd
2 day 3 November 2007 Saturday –
3rd day 4 November 2007 Sunday –
th
4 day 5 November 2007 Monday
5th day 6 November 2007 Tuesday-
th
50 6 day 7 November 2007 Wednesday
7th day 8 November 2007 Thursday
th
8 day 9 November 2007 Friday
9th day 10 November 2007 Saturday –
th
10 day 11 November 2007 Sunday –
55 11th day 12 November 2007 Monday
th
12 day 13 November 2007 Tuesday
13th day 14 November 2007 Wednesday
th
14 day 15 November 2007 Thursday
15th day 16 November 2007 Friday
th
60 16 day 17 November 2007 Saturday
17th day 18 November 2007 Sunday

p42 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
18th day 19 November 2007 Monday
th
19 day 20 November 2007 Tuesday
20th day 21 November 2007 Wednesday
st
21 day 22 November 2007 Thursday
5 22nd day 23 November 2007 Friday
rd
23 day 24 November 2007 Saturday
24th day 25 November 2007 Sunday (not being a Saturday polling to be held following Saturday)
th
25 day 26 November 2007 Monday
26th day 27 November 2007 Tuesday
th
10 27 day 28 November 2007 Wednesday
28th day 29 November 2007 Thursday
th
29 day 30 November 2007 Friday
30th day 1 December 2007 Saturday (only possible poling day)
.
15 While it is not for me to dictate how the Governor-General may seek to resolve the problem, such as
issuing an amendment Writ that provides for an election to be held on Saturday 1 December 2007, it must
be recognised that the Australian Electoral Commission has no legal powers to hold an election in conflict
to the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as a defective writ issued by the Governor-
General without any intention to conflict with legislative provisions cannot override legislative provisions.
20 Hence, unless a correction to thew issued writs is issued to adjust to the Saturday 1 December 2007 poll
date any other polling date will be without legal force. I must make clear that as yet I have not checked the
validity of the poll dates of writs issued for Senate elections but I suspect they too likely will be again
incorrect and then those writs also will be ULTRA VIRES and so without legal force. In my view, were
the Commonwealth Electoral Commissioner proceed nevertheless with holding on 24 November 2007
25 purported federal elections, in breach of legislative provisions then I view the AEC could cause itself by
this to be guilty of serious criminal conduct. It should be understood that since 2001 the AEC had ample of
time to address the issues appropriately and in particular where it was totally defeated on all constitutional
and other legal issues on 19 July 2006 then to deliberately pursue nevertheless incorrect polling dates in my
view might be taken as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to deliberately deny electors of
30 FAIR and PROPER elections. In view that the Writs were issues on 17 October 2007 while could have
been issued earlier there can be no excuse for failure to comply with legal requirements.
For months it was debated that there would be an federal election but Mr. John Howard, so to say, was
playing games when he was going to call and election, and then did have the House of Representatives
purportedly dissolved after it already had expired its three year term.
35 It is not for the AEC to try to cover up for Mr. John Howard, and if anything, in view of the past litigation
battle and the total defeat of the AEC by me ought to have warned the AEC that I would be on it again and
it should have ensured that this time appropriate notification was provided to the Federal Government and
others that time schedules had to be applied according to legislative provisions.
.
40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
5 Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be
binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth,
notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on
45 all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of
destination are in the Commonwealth.
.
Again;
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution
50 .
As such, the Governor-General is as much bound to observe laws enacted under the provisions of the
Constitution as anyone else and as such a defective writ does not override legislative provisions.
Hence, the Australian Electoral Commission cannot pursue the holding of any federal election on 24
November 2007 as the time period is too short. In particular where this issue was raised over the 5 -year
55 litigation by me as a constitutional issues, and so UNCHALLENGED, by the Australian Electoral
Commission it is bound to accept that it cannot hold a federal election in defiance of legislative provisions.
.
Now, what I am after is that all so called declared candidates who in 2001 and 2004 were paid monies as
for "payment to vote" relating to electors first preferences that they all have to repay this moneys as I view
60 this was fraudulently obtained in that there never were any constitutionally valid elections held. Likewise I
will pursue that anyone who seeks to obtain monies of any purported election on 24 November 2007 also

p43 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
face the legal consequences. Likewise so those of the Australian Electoral Commission who participate in
this unconstitutional conduct of defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia.
.
but that is not all. As the Coalition government so much pursued to have WorkChoices which requires that
5 employers withhold payments to those who are absent from work then considering the Ministers who are
employed as Ministers of State being out on political business for their political trade unions to campaign
for their parties then they too should be financially penalised for their political trade union gatherings, etc.
.
If it is good for the goose it must be good for the gander, so to say,.
10 .
Hence. For example with John Howard roaming around the Commonwealth of Australia I view we the
taxpayers should not be out having to pay his political campaign travelling, his hotel accommodation, his
security guards, etc, etc. likewise that of other ministers of state.
.
15 OK you might argue that WorkChoices doesn’t apply to ministers of the Crown because they are not
employed by the Commonwealth but are in fact employed by the British Monarch Queen Elizabeth II and I
can only agree to this but then there is a catch 22 to this. If they are not employed by the Commonwealth of
Australia, and I readily admit that, then again we go back to the Constitution;
.
20 66 Salaries of Ministers
There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the
salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not
exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.
.
25 Did you notice the inclusion of the words "There shall be payable to the queen, out of Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth,"" Well, that means Ministers of State cannot get paid from the
Consolidated Revenue Fund directly but only through Her Majesty the Queen.
And, as far as I know the ministers have abandoned any salary claim against Her Majesty Elizabeth II of
the United Kingdom but have professed to have some "Queen of Australia" Elizabeth II". One may ask who
30 was the Elizabeth Queen of Australia before her?
More over, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia was not a
dominion, republic, kingdom or empire but was a "POLITICAL UNION" (As like the European Union)
then obviously it is sheer and utter nonsense to claim there is a "Queen of Australia" as it would be an insult
to our real Queen that she is a Queen of a non-existing country. As I eluded to before "Australia" is a
35 Continent", and there is no country called "Australia". What this means is that Ministers of State appointed
within Section 64 of the constitution are entitled to a "salary" they have to obtain from Her Majesty the
Queen of the United kingdom, as has the Governor -General, and once they are out of such office they have
no financial claim against the Commonwealth of Australia whatsoever. Where it comes to a Minister of
State still being a Member of the Parliament, then he/;she is also entitled to an "allowance" within Section
40 48 of the Constitution". As such, when there is a dissolution that causes a Minister to have his/her seat
declared "vacant" then the Minister of State is still entitled to be paid his/her "salary" while in office but
cannot have the financial benefit of the political office facilities as if the Minister is still a Member of
Parliament. Meaning, that when the Governor-General dissolves a House then all its members loose any
rights and entitlements to their public offices and facilities they held as a Member of Parliament.
45 As such, there is no such a thing as a "sitting member" contesting a "vacant seat". Senators who are
standing for re-election are not contesting a "vacant" seat at the time the election is held. In a "DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION" there are no "Senators" because all seats have been declared "vacant". When however
there is a half Senate election, such as with Senator Stott Despoja, her seat is not vacant until 1 July 2008
and as such if she would have stood as a candidate for the Senate election then she would be a "sitting
50 Member of Parliament".
.
As I wrote previously to the Australian Electoral Commissioner, I "BOYCOTT" the "PURPORTED"
Federal election on 24 November 2007 as the writs are yet again "DEFECTIVE" and so NULL AND
VOID and as such also WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE.
55 .
Sure, the Governor-General and all Governors could still issue an amendment to the Proclamations and
writs to adjust the dates on the previous issued proclamation(s)/wits that 24 November 2007 becomes 1
December 2007 as to ensure that then at leas the federal election is held within the legislated period, and
while I would admit this is a constitutional and legal valid exercise to pursue, the problem remains however
60 that I "BOYCOTT" the "PURPORTED" Federal election because of the proclamation and the writs in
regard of the incorrect polling date stated, as well as other issues.

p44 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
For example, there must be a returning date for the writs. A specific date and not on or about 15 January
2008.
There must also be no more then a 3 month maximum period between the time a Minister of State has his
seat declared vacant (as was on 17 October 2007) and the date the parliament first sit! Not that somehow
5 the Governor-General can swear in the same Ministers again and allow them to artificially extend the
3month period. As such, if hypothetical John Howard was so to say re-elected and the first sitting of the
Parliament was after 16 January 2008 then effectively by the provisions of Section 64 of the Constitution
any Minister would loose his office.
Now, check this back over past elections if there was any prime minister or other Minister who had more
10 then a 3 month gap between the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the first sitting of the
(new) Parliament.
.
Sure, I expect that most people will simply ignore what I write about, as the AEC and the JSCEM did over
many years, but in the end I succeeded in the Courts on all constitutional and other legal grounds I raised in
15 the proceeding UNCHALLENGED.
.
IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE AND AS SUCH THE MORE ANYONE IGNORES THE RULING OF
THE COURT THE MORE LIKELY THEY CAN FACE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES!
20 .
I have always anticipated that it might take many years to pursue JUSTICE, but in the end I am confident
that in time it will be achieved. After all, despite the 5-year legal battle I succeeded on 19 July 2006 and as
such it proved that JUSTICE CAN PREVAIL! Sure, despite the Courts ruling John Howard and others
went ahead as if there was no Court ruling but that is something I also anticipated all along.
25 .
When I commenced to contest the constitutional/legal validity of the purported 10 November 2001 federal
election, prior to it having been held, it was commenced upon the issue that all writs were issued
"DEFECTIVE". In the end the Court upheld my claims on 19 July 2006!
Now, the Australian Electoral Commission, rather then to show to be independent to pursue FAIR and
30 PROPER elections went about having lawyers committing perjury (that is what it is called when a lawyer
filed an sworn affidavit containing false and misleading evidence) and having Mr. Peter Hanks QC
perverting the course of justice by making false and misleading and deceptive statements and concealing
relevant details from the Court. For the record Mr. Peter Hanks QC is well aware I exposed his rot but has
never denied the truth of my allegations, as he is well aware that I am correct in what I have stated about
35 him in that regard.
.
In the ADDRESS TO THE COURT for the successful 19 July 2006 hearing in the County court of
Victoria the following was stated and it must be made clear UNCHALLENGED by the AEC/CDPP.
.
40 Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
"Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true."
.
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.
"Although the Family Court is a court created by statute, it never the less possesses an inherent jurisdiction
45 to set aside a judgement obtained by default - there is no indication in the Family Law Act of an intention to
displace this inherent jurisdiction."
"In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is willfully false. The
sub-section should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'willful false
evidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act
50 1902 which speaks of a witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which would
comprehend cases of willful false evidence. At common law, a judgement will be set aside if it has been
obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must show
something more than perjury, ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V. Ribbands
55 [1946] 175 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their literal
meaning"
.
Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
"As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his
60 clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he
honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount.

p45 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do
what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of
truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the
truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must
5 produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if
ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific
instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court."
.
QUOTE "ADDRESS TO THE COURT" 19-7-2006
10 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his argument in
point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
QUOTE
23. In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule
that "not less than" so many days refers to clear days – "unless the context or the statutory intention reveals
15 a contrary intention".
END QUOTE
His quotation is again false and misleading!
Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
QUOTE
20 "unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention"
END QUOTE
This ought to be;
QUOTE
"unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention"
25 END QUOTE
Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case for the Court to deal
with a "statutory intention" versus "subject matter".
Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001);
The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language ("not less that" or "at
30 least" a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as found in ss156(1) and 157.
Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search "shall not be less than" or "shall not
be less that". As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the Australian Electoral Commission was a
fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the
35 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161
What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case really was on about.
As the authority stated:
The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by
one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
40 Mr Peter Hank QC didn’t argue that the authority wasn’t relevant, to the contrary he argued its relevance only by
misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about. As such, it had nothing to do with
"within" as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usage "within" was in a different context and not at all as Mr
Hanks sought to imply and did imply.
It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed deceptive tactics, but
45 it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry about the means as long as it achieves his
end results.
END QUOTE "ADDRESS TO THE COURT" 19-7-2006
.
As I have already explained in previous correspondence to the Australian Electoral Commission both the term "shall
50 not be less than" or the term "shall not be less that" are used frequently, where the latter is containing a typing
error made in at least 28,000 known cases in legislation’s, etc, all over the world.
.
As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my issue is also that no Federal Government can constitutionally pursue funding
for a certain marginal seat, as to me this would be "bribery" as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the
55 commonwealth of Australia could only provide for the "whole of the Commonwealth" in legislation, etc. other then
what otherwise is provided for in the Constitution. As such, the Inter-State Commission and not some Council of
Australian Governments, decides if legislation and/or funding enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia will be
applied as such in a particular State where it relates to the involvement of the Inter-State Commission. For example
the Federal Government, and so Political parties may use this as a "public policy" that the Inter-State Commission
60 within Section 101 of the Constitution will be authorised to review all infrastructure facilities relating to waterways
and ports and will be allowed to provide the funding for works it deems required for this. The Commonwealth could

p46 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
not itself provide funding for a certain port in discrimination to other states but the Inter-State Commission was
specifically set up separately in the constitution to allow for this where it was deemed that this was in the interest of
the Commonwealth as well as with the relevant State(s) concerned. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that
Port facilities did come under commonwealth powers as they were an extension of the navigable rivers. Yes, they
5 did debate this.
Likewise, they held that under (xxiii) "invalid and old-age pensions" it included legislative powers to deal with
lunatics and paupers travelling beyond the border of one State.
In fact, they also made clear that maritime workers were under Commonwealth powers. Hence the Victorian Patrick
affair was wrongly handled!
10 .
I understand you are not a lawyer, but then again how many lawyers were there in the previous Parliament and how
many even were aware of issues relating to lunatics, paupers, ports, etc?
You see, if there is "new leadership" then I expect it to be to ensure that we do not cast adrift further from the
Constitution but that it will be a Government that is on course with Constitutional provisions and limitations.
15 However, I doubt this will be so as while I must recognise that Kevin Rudd in his references to pursue a referendum
regarding hospitals if matters do not improve drastically do es appear to go the right way, on the other hand I will
quote the following that gives me a cause of concern;
.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22569834 -5006301,00.html?from=mostpop
20 QUOTE
Howard says millions back his no apology position
MARK KENNY, POLITICAL EDITOR, CANBERRA, and AAP
October 12, 2007 10:00am
END QUOTE
25 And
QUOTE
"The way to help them is to incorporate them into the mainstream of the community but still to recognise because
they were the first inhabitants of this country, that they do have a special place in our nation and they have a special
place in our history," he said.
30 END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
In a joint statement last night, Labor leader Kevin Rudd and indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said
that while they would like to see details of Mr Howard's plan, the ALP would offer bipartisan support to the concept
35 "in the spirit of the 1967 referendum".
END QUOTE
.
Can you point out where in "The Constitution" there is a "preamble" to which Section 128 referendum can apply?
Last I checked "The Constitution", which is Clause/Chapter 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
40 1900 (UK) the only "preamble" I could locate is in the part of the British Act which is not part of the Constitution
itself and so beyond powers of a Section 128 referendum. In fact likewise so any purported referendum about a
REPUBLIC is beyond constitutional powers as it neither is part of the Constitution to amend this with Section 128
referendum!
.
45 Sure, Mr Malcolm Turnbull claims to know about the Constitution and was even heading the Australian Republican
Movement (ARM) but in my view he had done better to first research and study what he was on about before
opening his mouth with what I view was a lot of nonsense. And so likewise for the monarchist who neither appeared
to me to have a clue what they were really on about.
.
50 Likewise so with Malcolm Turnbull and for this John Howard and others issue about "WATER",
As I have already written extensively about in the past all WATER that falls on a persons property is in the
ownership of that owner and does not belong to the State. Neither can the state therefore hand over any such powers
to the Commonwealth. I will refrain from going extensively into this issue further, in view that I have already
extensively published in my books but if Kevin Rudd is about "new leadership" then let him show he intends to do
55 so and return to the fold of what is constitutionally permissible and appropriate.
.
We can see if he as a federalist really means what he is saying or just is a lot of hot air.
.
Let him show that he demands that the federal election is held in accordance with legislati ve provisions and that
60 where the 24 November 2007 purported election date in fact is in conflict to legislative provisions then he personally

p47 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
will pursue that the proclamation and writs are amended by subsequent proclamation and writs amending the
previous published proclamation and writs.
.
It is a matter of record that the Governor had published a Proclamation and then published a subsequent
5 proclamation amending the date of the previous proclamation. As such, it can be done.
.
As a person part of the general community I rather see that there is a federal election held on the correct date
available but admittedly as Author of books it gives me, so to say, a field day to write about.
.
10 for example. As I challenged the validity of the writs of the purported 10 November 2001 federal election (and so
also of 2004), it means that by Section 64 of the Constitution after the purported federal election Mr Howard for
maximum 3 months was Prime Minister and then by virtue of Section 64 he no longer was. As such he paraded to be
prime minister albeit he wasn’t. Likewise so with other ministers. Hence, at the time he authorised the murderous
invasion into Iraq he was for all constitutional purposes neither a member of parliament and/or a Minister of state.
15 As only the Governor-General can declare war and a Minister of defence (not a Prime Minister) then can act upon
this, where there was no DECLARTION OF WAR published in the Gazette then by Section 24AA of the Crimes
Act (Cth) it was "treachery" to authorise the murderous invasion by Australian troops into Iraq. Hence, I pursue that
John Howard and his cohorts are dealt with for MASS MURDER, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,
TREACHERY, TREASON, etc.
20 and those who were co-conspirators like George W Bush and Tony Blair in the invasion, regardless that in their own
countries they may have acted lawfully under the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia they can also be
held accountable;
.
Conspiracy
25 .
Commonwealth v. Hunt
(1842), American legal case in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the common-law
doctrine of criminal conspiracy didnot apply to labour unions. Until then, workers' attempts to establish
closed shops had been subject to prosecution. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw asserted, however, that trade
30 unions were legal and that they had the right to strike or take other steps of peaceful coercion to raise wages
and ban nonunion workers.
The case stemmed from a demand by the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society that an employer fire
one of its members who had disobeyed the society's rules. The employer, fearing a strike, complied, but the
dismissed employee complained to the district attorney, who then drew an indictment charging the society
35 with conspiracy. The Boston Municipal Court found the union guilty.
Justice Shaw, hearing the case on appeal, altered the traditional criteria for conspiracy by holding that the
mere act of combining for some purpose was not illegal. Only those combinations intended "to accomplish
some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful,
by criminal or unlawful means" could be prosecuted. Shaw, in effect, legalized the American labour
40 union movement by this decision.
.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
"In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
45 conspiracy."
.
And as to any purported legislation, proclamation, writs, etc that are/were unconstitutional;
.
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the
50 USA; http://familyguardian.tax-
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
55 And
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law
constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be
valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one
must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
60 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from

p48 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
5 rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
land, it is superseded thereby.
10 No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
.
As such, if you intent to bless your luck on legislation or conventions that are unconstitutional then forget about it!
15 .
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
.
20 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
25 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
.
Seems to me that nothing less then a ROYAL COMMISSION should investigate these and numerous other matters
I have raised.
.
30 This correspondence is not and must not be perceived to raise all issues of concern or matters relevant to the issues
raised above!
Awaiting your response,
G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

35
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

40 107 Graham Road

Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia

Ph/Fax 03-94577209
45 International 61394577209

"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and
other legal issues.
50
See also website; http://schorel-hlavka.com and

Blog; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

55 "JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" (By;
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka)

You may not agree with some of my views and neither may I with some of yours but we ought work together to
perhaps make it to be "our view" others may be able to accept also!
60 (Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka)
END QUOTE

p49 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Alfaros <alfaros@bigpond.com> wrote:
Gerrit,
5
If you remember the UN did not authorized the invasion of Iraq. If was
GW Bush who ordered the invasion and attack of Iraq. Corrupted G.W.
Bush and friends Howard and Blair are the ones responsible for the
invasion and attack on Iraq. When G.W Bush try to get the UN involved,
10 they told him he was the one who invaded without UN approval and he must
fix his mess in Iraq.
I believe that you comments on that are bit off the actual records of
events and although you are a good man doing a good job telling
Australians about the Constitution , Legally, you need a bit more work
15 because to fight Constitutional Law, it is not just talk, you need
authorities to back you up or your Constitutional arguments do not hold
up in Court..

Sincerely
20 Pedro

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® 107 Graham Road


Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph/Fax 03-94577209 International 61394577209 .
"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain
25 constitutional and other legal issues.
Website; http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-
ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .
"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .
END QUOTE 10November 2007 email
30 .
As indicated above this correspondence is not intended and must not be perceived to set out all
relevant issues and/or all relevant details to the issues but merely, so to say, be an introduction to
indicate there is a need for a ROYAL COMMISSION to appropriately investigate all relevant
matters and to recommend what, if any, charges should be laid for treason, treachery, war crimes,
35 crimes against humanity and other charges it may deem appropriate in the circumstances against
John Howard and others, including the former Defence Minister Dr. Brendan Nelson and other
members of the Cabinet and those supporting the unconstitutional war as well as against those
who served in the armed forces such as General Cosgrove.
We can hardly claim to be able to be or become an independent nation when we cannot
40 even manage to hold accountable those who abused and misused their powers!
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® 107 Graham Road


45 Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph/Fax 03-94577209 International 61394577209 .
"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on
certain constitutional and other legal issues.
Website; http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-
ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .
50 "JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER
SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .

p50 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)


A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011 -61-3-94577209 or E-mail inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au See also www.schorel-hlavka.com