Chapter 001 - p19 - Creation of The Constitution

Chapter 001 CREATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
* Gary, what is the background about the creation of the Constitution (Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK))?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, when the British landed in Australia (the continent) they did
bring with them all English common law. So, the 1215 Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the so
called STAR CHAMBER ACT ([1640] 16 Charles I c. X), etc.
1640 Star Chamber Act
Act Interpretation Act 1980 (Vic) Division 2—Habeas Corpus
[1640] 16 Charles I c. X (6) and that from henceforth no court, council or place of
judicature, shall be erected, ordained, constituted or appointed within this realm of
England, or dominion of Wales, which shall have, use or exercise the same or the like
jurisdiction as is or hath been used, practiced or exercised in the said court of star-
chamber.
What out to be understood from onset is that the Commonwealth of Australia is a totally different
kind of constitutional body then what the British Parliament and the British Government is about.
And, while often British, so called, experts come over to advise how to deal with matters, they
totally fail to understand that the legal implications in the Commonwealth of Australia is different
then in the UK. A Minister in the UK has unlimited powers within his portfolio where as the
equivalent Minister in the Commonwealth of Australia is limited to what falls within “peace,
order, and good government” as set out in Chapter 007A and 007B.
Therefore, legislation that might be enacted and implemented in the UK may not at all be possible
as such in the Commonwealth of Australia. This as in the UK the British parliament has powers to
legislate as it desires as to “civil rights”, “factory laws”, “common law rights”, etc, where as
none of these are legislative powers with the Commonwealth of Australia. As such industrial
relations legislation in the UK could not as such necessarily be applied in the Commonwealth of
Australia. Because the Commonwealth of Australia is created by statue and was not a piece of
land in its own right, like the states (formally Colonies) there is no “common law” applicable in
the Commonwealth of Australia. Hence, breaches against Commonwealth law is to be dealt with
by a State Court. And, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear even if the High Court of
Australia were to sit with a “jury” then this “jury” has to be drawn from a State. The Territories
do have “common law” as they were created out of parts of the States, and such had “common
law” upon its creation.
As also set out in “Chapter 003 LEGAL FICTION - persona designata”, the High Court of
Australia when sitting as a Court of disputed Returns is not actually a Court of law that can hand
down judicial decisions rather it is acting on behalf of the politicians. That is why its absurd
judgment in Sue v Hill about Australia’s evolutionary independence is so absurd that politicians
could come up with but not a “Court of law”! But the High Court of Australia sitting as the High
Court of Australia as a Court of law now seeks to adapt this utter nonsense as if it is now a matter
of law. The Court of Disputed Returns really ought to be called “Tribunal of Disputed Returns”
as it is to me more like a KANGAROO COURT and outlawed by the so-called STAR
CHAMBER ACT ([1640] 16 Charles I c. X). It doesn’t matter that the High Court of Australia
itself is sitting as a Court of disputed Returns, as the moment it sits on behalf of
politicians/parliamentarians it cannot adjudicate, as to do so would in fact give judicial powers to
the Parliament. After all, if the Court of disputed Returns on behalf of the politicians can
adjudicate then the politicians might just abolish the Court of Disputed Returns and themselves
exercise from then on the “judicial” powers used by the Court of Disputed Returns previously.
It is a very stupid conduct for any Court to breach the separation of powers as divided in the
Constitution. The stupid situation that computers now operate as a “Court” underlines the dangers
coming with it.
Page 1 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 1
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 order, any of the published books, by facsimile 0011-61-3-94577209 E-mail
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
You will find that people are however time and again convicted by “PERIN court” (now called
CIVIL COMPLIANCE) system where a computer convicts a person without a trial!
* So, are you saying that albeit it might be ignored, they are completely applicable?
**#** In my view they are. The very grant by the Monarch to allow Colonies to have self
Government was based upon those and other provisions. Therefore, either we take the lot or none
at all. Not, so to say, cherry picking what may suit. As I made clear to John Howard in early 2003,
the USA constitution was also based upon the Magna Charta and so must be applied to David
Hicks.
* Didn’t the Supreme Court of the USA a few months later in fact declare that the American
constitution was based upon the Magna Charta principles?
**#** That is correct. So I was right in that regard also. If the independent USA still has the
Magna Charta applicable then we having notably the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) as our Constitution then are for sure bound by the Magna Charta provisions.
The Colony of New South Wales was created upon those provisions also. Then subsequently bit
by bit other Colonies were created from splitting from the mother Colony NSW.
* Isn’t that funny, they split and then get back together with a Federation?
**#** They didn’t. They did have a very limited Federation and not a confederation!
* What does this mean?
**#** Firstly look at the State of Victoria. It separated from the original Colony NSW to become
a Colony in its own right. However, this was done by H.M.Queen Victoria granting this right.
Therefore, whatever powers the Colony of Victoria (now Referred to as the State of Victoria)
remains at all times subject to the British law and British Crown. For this the British Monarch
requires to appoint the Governor for the State of Victoria on advise of the Home Office at 10
Downing Street, London, because the Governor is essentially representing Her Majesty.
* Are you saying that the Governor of a State is not representing the State?
**#** Of course not. The moment the Governor represents the State and not the Monarch then his
actions are null and void. After all, the Governor must exercise (ROYAL) PREROGATIVE to
give Royal Assent to Bills (proposed laws) passed by the State Parliament for and on behalf of the
British Crown. This is also why the Governor can refuse, on behalf of Her Majesty, to give
ROYAL ASSENT as when a Bill is in conflict with British law it is null and void and has no legal
enforcement. Just see it is you authorizing a caretaker to look after your property. The caretaker
then acts with your authority and can make whatever decision appropriate to represent your
interest but the caretaker cannot sell your property, as that would not be within his assigned rights
to act on your behalf, unless you give specific powers to act on your behalf by Power of Attorney.
* I get it. The Governor therefore is not duly and properly appointed if he is not representing the
British Crown but is representing the people?
**#** That is correct. The Parliament is representing the people and the Governor is representing
the British Crown. But, the Governor is also referred to as the ADMINISTRATOR, as
essentially he administrates the State of Victoria on behalf of the Queen. The moment the Queen
sets foot in the State of Victoria all powers of the Governor then is subject to what Her Majesty
still allows him to exercise. The same with the Governor-General in the Commonwealth of
Australia.
* Why is he called Governor-General? Does that mean that he is the boss over the other
Governors?
**#** That is really a misdemeanor, and incorrect title. The Governor-General has no real powers
over any of the Governors. Their area of powers are really on different platforms, so to say. A
Governor-General, as like a Governor is in real terms also to be appointed by the Queen. He
represents the British Crown, and also means, he can only be appointed by Her Majesty upon
recommendation of the Home Office, at 10 Downing Street, London. As such, whatever their
title, Governor or Governor-General are in reality representing the British Crown and are all
ADMINISTRATORS or as the framers also made known CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
Application of provisions relating to Governor-General.
4. The provision of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the
Governor-General for the time being or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator of
the Government of the Commonwealth, by whatever title he is designated.

Mr. SYMON.-
We know that the Governor is the chief executive officer,

Mr. GLYNN.-The Federal Parliament can affect the prerogative, but only within the limits prescribed
by this Act.
It must be stated however, that while they are administrating the States, or the Commonwealth of
Australia, each and every one of them requires to consider in whatever advise any Minister may
give as to what is in the best interest of the “general community”. Meaning, that even if a Bill is
passed by the Parliament and does not conflict with British law, the Governor or Governor-
General can still refuse to give ROYAL ASSENT if he takes the position the legislation is against
the interest of the “general community”. As such, the Governor or Governor-General has the
ultimate veto power for and on behalf of Her Majesty.
* History and politics are normally boring but by gee I really like this conversation. If you don’t
mind can you then explain how the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia operates?
**#** Well, as you already have seen, the powers of the States really remain subject to the British
Crown and for that also the British Parliament. The British Parliament cannot willy nilly make
whatever laws as to implied defeat, say, Victorian laws. They must pass a special constitutional
legislation that is specifily designed to override the State of Victoria (or other State) constitutional
power. In normal terms, when the British Parliament has a new act passed and it has been given
ROYAL ASSENT then it automatically repeals any older conflicting legislation. That makes it a
bit confusing, doesn’t it, to know what is applicable? Then they also have the so called Henry the
Eight powers, where a Minister of the Crown simply can amend any legislative provision he
desires to amend.
* Gee, you really know your stuff. And you didn’t even have formal education in regard of it?

**#** I learned this all from legal research, as to how laws operate. By commencing from the
bottom and then work it up to get where I am. That is why I can see the mistakes lawyers and
politicians are making. They had formal education at education facilities, being it legal studies or
otherwise and given a dose of legalistic nonsense and they ever since had this as a cancerous
growth accumulating further nonsense. Hence, the nonsense of legislation enacted.
* And do Henry the VIII powers also apply also in Australia?
**#** No, it was actually a specific British provision.
* But, didn’t you say that all common laws applicable in the mother country Great Britain came
to Australia by settlement?
**#** We do not have any Ministers of the Crown in that nature. You see, because we are subject
to the British Crown, and the British Parliament, means our various State constitutions and so the
Federal Constitution are really by-laws to them. So, our Australian Parliament basically are
operating as second rate Parliaments who’s legislative powers remain under control of the British
Crown and British Parliament.
* I understood that the High Court of Australia did make clear in Sue v Hill that we become
gradually independent. And, more over that Australia now has its own Queen, the Queen of
Australia!
**#** Yes, pull the other leg. Look, if one of my granddaughters, who are not even going to pre-
school, were to be asked a question about the independence of the Commonwealth of Australia
then they would in my view make more sense then those judges at the High Court of Australia.,
* That is a bit harsh, isn’t it?
**#** My granddaughters would simply not understand the issue and would simply not give an
answer and by this would do better then giving any kind of nonsense. Lets go back to your
caretaker, who is supposed to look after your property and for this is allowed to rent your property
out to people. Now, if your caretaker then were to decide that he is going to sell your place
instead, even so you never authorized him to do so, would you consider this to be legal?
* Of course not!
**#** That is the same with the Colonies, now referred to as the States and their partly
POLITICAL UNION called Commonwealth of Australia! They remain all subject to the British
Crown.
* How do you know that?
**#** You asked for it so read some of the quotations I have set out below that makes it clear that
the British Parliament never intended to create a new Colony within existing Colonies and that
they maintained that the Commonwealth of Australia would remain under British law and the
British Crown.
They stated;
The responsibility for the action of the Parliament of Australia and its legislation rests with us.
And

We considered that a doubt had been created as to whether that would apply to the work of the
Commonwealth. That doubt arises entirely from the introduction into the Commonwealth bill of a definition
of the word “ colony” as a “colony or province” which seemed therefore, to exclude “commonwealth’. But
having had the advantage of further discussions with the delegates , Her Majesty’s Government and the
delegates from Australia entirely agreed that the best way of meeting this difficulty and of removing any doubt
will be to omit from the Bill the words defining a colony.
And lets indeed look at what the Framers of the Constitution (The Delegates at the Constitution
Convention) themselves stated
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever to the word
"Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I have no objection to that where it
is confined to the expression of the political Union. In the preamble honorable members will find that what we
desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the
Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the
political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the
name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble
goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the
Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I
do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
Again;
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.
Mr. HOLDER:
because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire,

Mr. BARTON:
The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is firmly embedded in
the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
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
subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler
than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present
when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position
we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal
citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a
Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
Again;
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be
beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
Now let us check out that the British Parliament for example had recorded in debates to pass the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK)
Just hold on to your seat while you have a ride through it!
QUOTE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL
[introduction]
th
14 May 1900 House of Commons Hansard. Vol 1900 P 46.
THE SECTRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES ( Mr J Chamberlain Birmingham W.)
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The House is aware that the first colonization of Australia took place in 1788, and that for nearly a generation
after that time, as other settlement were made at vast distances along the coast, they call came in some measure
under the control of what I may call the central administration which existed in Sydney.
But it will be readily seen that that, as these settlements gradually became more populous and of greater
importance, the , the difficulty of a central administration became almost intolerable, and accordingly, in
1825, what was then known as Van Diemans Land became a separate colony under the name of Tasmania. ,
and the example of Tasmania was followed in succession by Western Australia , South Australia, Victoria and
lastly by Queensland in 1859.Victoria which was then known as the Port Philip Settlement was separated
from New South Wales by Act of Parliament in 1850, but in 1847, when giving assent to this proposal, Earl
Grey to whom we must feel we we owe most of the principles by which our colonial policy is guided, laid
down the views then entertained by him and HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT of the time in reference to
the need for some central authority in Australia. ( p48)
He said: “ It is necessary while providing for local management of local interests we should not omit to
provide for the central management of all interests not local. Questions having a bearing on the interests of
the Empire may be left appropriately to the Imperial Parliament
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Federal Council, however , although wisely designed as an experimental step at a time when there was
still much to be done before the colonies themselves could see the necessity of a closer union. ---
END QUOTE
QUOTE
And So the Bill is presented to us. It comes with the authority behind it of five federating colonies , and it is
this bill, with a few alterations, but substantially this bill with 128 clauses and dealing with a vast number,
probably with hundreds, or even thousands of separate propositions of the greatest importance , which I have
to ask leave to introduce. I think it will be admitted that this Bill is a bill worthy of all the care and the labour
which has been bestowed upon it. I think I may describe it as, and it certainly is, a monument of legislative
competency. Of course, the framers of the Bill themselves are perfectly ready to admit it may not be perfect,
that amendments may have to be made and that experience may show show that something has been omitted,
or that something has been placed within its four corners which might, with advantage have been left out but
(p52) provision has been made for any such amendment in the Bill itself; and considering the magnitude and
the variety of the interests that we are to deal with, the intricacy and importance of subjects with which the bill
has to deal, I think that no praise can be too high for those whose moderation, patience, skill, mutual
consideration, and patriotism have been able to produce so great a result.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Accordingly, while in Canada the result of the Constitution was substantially to amalgamate the provinces into
one Dominion, the Constitution of Australia creates a federation of distinctly definite and limited objects of a
number of independent States and States Rights have throughout been jealously preserved. In Canada
everything that was not given expressly to the provinces, went to the Central Government. In Australia the
Central Government has only powers over matters which are expressly stated and defined in the
Constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Because they involve matters outside Australia as well as locally- first the fisheries in Australian waters,
beyond the territorial limits of Australia, secondly; copyright; thirdly; legislation dealing with the people of
any race not being natives of either of the States ( I think that has in view legislation in relation to asiatice.);
fourthly external affairs, a phrase of great breadth and vagueness, unless interpreted and controlled by some
other provision might, easily it will be seen, give rise to seriopus difficulties:
END QUOTE
QUOTE
On the one hand, we have accepted without demur, and we shall ask the House of Commons to accept, every
point in this Bill, every word, every line, every clause, which deals exclusively with the interests of Australia.
We may be vain enough to think that we might have made improvements for the advantage of Australia, but
we recognize that they are the best judges in their own case, and we are quite content that the views of their
representatives should be in these matters accepted as final; and the result of that is the bill which I hope to
present to the House tonight is so far as ninety-nine hundredths of it, I think I might say 999-thousandths of
it- is concerned- as regards the vast proportion of the Bill, is --- exactly the same as that which passed the
referendum of the Australian people. But the second principle to which I ask the House to assent to, and to
which we have given application by certain amendments we have made in the Bill, is that wherever the Bill
touches the interests of the Empire as a whole, or the interests of Her majesty’s subjects, or of Her Majesty’s
possessions outside Australia , the Imperial Parliament occupies a position of trust which it is not the desire of
the Empire, and which I do believe for a moment it is the desire of Australia , that we should fulfil in any
perfunctionary or formal manner.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
I now come to the points in which we think amendment to be necessary.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
We propose to make clear in the Bill the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act to the Commonwealth.
Doubts have been expressed in the course of discussion whether the Commonwealth is a colony within
the ,meaning of the Act. The Act, as lawyers in the house are perfectly well aware, provides among other
things, that where a colonial Act is repugnant to an Imperial Statute , it shall not be wholly void, but shall only
be void so far as repugnancy extends. It was intended as an enabling Act to pre-vent what might have
otherwise might have occurred. The whole colonial statute being.P 60) rendered void in consequence of it
being repugnant on some one point to Imperial Legislation. The Act is one of great importance because it
defines the extent to which the paramountcy of Imperial legislation goes. The fact that Imperial legislation is
paramount has always been admitted by the colonies, although the use of the constitutional power has, of
course been extremely rare. The kind of cases in which that paramountcy becomes of importance are such
cases as those of the Foreign Enlistment Act and the Merchant Shipping Act. In both those cases I think it
should be desirable that there should be legislation for the whole Empire and not conflicting legislation in
rd
different parts of the Empire. In the memorandum presented by the delegates on the 23 March they argue
that the amendment is altogether unnecessary. They say the Commonwealth appears to the delegates to be
clearly a colony, and the Fesderal Parliament to be clearly a legislature within the meaning of that Act;
They do not think that the larger meaning given to the word in Clause 6 1 can be held to take away the
protection of the Act of 1865 for any law passed by the Federal Parliament. Now I think the House will feel
there is no difference of opinion as to the merits as between us and the delegates. The only point is they
think the amendment is a work of superrogation 2, but we feel that the matter involving as it does our
foreign relations, is of such vast importance that we ought not to leave a shadow of doubt on the
question. It is fair to say, and I wish to call the attention of the house to the fact--- that in the last
memorandum which was presented to the delegates only a day or two ago, they raised for the first time a very
very important question—namely whether the Colonial Laws Validity Act as it stands is a law properly
applicable to a great Commonwealth like the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. Her
Majesty’s Government admit the importance of the question. They admit it is a very fair point to raise. But if
there is to be any change in regard to the matter, which as I have said is of such infinite importance, the
greatest care will have to be taken and very considerable delay must necessarily occur.
We…………………………………………p 62) Act could be adopted I do not object on behalf of Her
Majesty’s Government that the matter is not worthy of consideration. All I can say is we have to deal with a

provisional period. We cannot delay the passing of the Federation Act in order to discuss this matter.
We must have a proper understanding before any change is made; but it will be open to the Federation
of Australia and the dominion of Canada , if they see fit, to raise the matter at a subsequent period, and
no doubt, in that case, any views they may express will receive the most serious consideration by Her
Majesty’s Government.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir, I wish at the outset to repudiate in the strongest and clearest terms the possibility that any difference of
opinion upon what is a great Constitutional point, which has hitherto been duiscussed by the delegates with
ourselves in a most cordial spirit, can, by any possibility be a a matter of serious conflict between us and the
colonies of Australia.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Clause 74, as submitted, would allow no appeal to the in any matter involving the Federal constitution, or the
Constitution of a State unless the “public interests” of some part of Her Majesty’s dominions other than
Australia are involved; and it further provides- a matter to which sufficient attention has not been directed-
that the Federal parliament may make laws limiting further matters on which appeal is to lie. Now the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, unless he has again been misrepresented said that the bill did take
away any right existing. He will find that is a mistake. It does take away the right of appeal from a State
where the State Constitution is in question; and that right exists at the present time. And further, as I have
pointed out , by a proposal in this solemn instrument expressly to authorize the newly created Parliament to
further limit the right to appeal, it almost makes it impossible for Her Majesty, in future in reference to this
subject, to exercise the right of veto which, of course is inherent in the prerogative.
Mr Asquith: Only as regards appeals from the new High Court. The Parliament can limit no other right of
appeal.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
I go on to another point to which I wish to call attention. Although in direct terms this bill does not limit the
right of veto, which is a right although undoubtedly reserved to the Crown, which must , nevertheless be
exercised with the most scrupulous care and consideration. ---- although it does not take away that right, it
would make it almost a stultification on the part of Her majesty, if the if the Crown were advised to exercise
the right in a matter which we had expressly referred and delegated to the new Parliament.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
I handed to him a memorandum on the part of Her Majesty’s Government of the amendments on the draft
proposal, which we had seen , which we thought were desirable; and I specially called his attention to the
probability that the Imperial Parliament would think it its duty to interfere if there were any limitation on the
right of appeal. In this passage I quoted a passage from a memorandum from the Privy council, which
gave in very succinct terms the main objections to any proposals of this kind In 1871 it appears a question
was raised at the instigation of some of the Australian colonies, and then the Privy Council in their
memorandum .p 65)
The appellate jurisdiction of Her Majesty in Council exists for the benefit of the colonies, and not for that of
the mother country, but it is impossible to overlook the fact that this jurisdiction is part of Her Majesty’s
prerogative, and which has been exercised for the benefit of the colonies since the date of their settlement. It
is still a powerful link between the colonies and the Crown of Great Britain, and secures to every subject
throughout the Empire the right to claim redress from the Throne.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Australian colonies in 1871 realised the validity of these reasons, and the matter was allowed to drop. It
was raised again in 1875, by the passing of the Act by which the Dominion of Canada was created; and
again the Privy Council pointed out that----
“this power has been exercised for centuries over all the dependencies of the Empire by the Sovereign of the
Mother country sitting in council. By this institution, common to all parts of the Empire beyond the seas, all
matters whatever requiring a judicial solution may be brought to the cognisence of one Court in which all
have a voice. To abolish this controlling power and abandon each colony and dependency to a Separate
Court of Appeal of its own, would obviously destroy one of the most important ties connecting all parts of the
Empire in common obedience to the courts of law, and to renounce the last and most essential mode of
exercising the authority of the Crown over its possessions abroad.
There are other reasons besides these which are stated by the Privy Council which we have now to bear in
mind. This Constitution is to be an Imperial act and it is, in substance, the delegation of powers to an
authority3 which is created by the Imperial Parliament. Is it reasonable that when questions arise , as
they will arise, as to the interpretation of the powers of the clause by which this authority is delegated,
the Imperial power which made the delegation shall not be represented upon the Court which is to to
give a decision? Then Sir, there is another point. The terms of the clause are such as certainly to introduce
confusion where uniformity is most desired. No appeal is to lie except where the “ public interest” of a
portion of Her Majesty’s dominions outside Australia are concerned, the advice which I have received on the
subject goes to show that there may be endless litigation as to the precise nature p66) of the cases in which the
public interest will arise. I believe there is no legal authoritative definition of what constitutes “ public
interest”.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The responsibility for the action of the Parliament of Australia and its legislation rests with us. We may
be brought into a hostile position in regard to any foreign country in consequence of the action of the
colonial court. Is it reasonable that while we undertake to cooperate with the colonies in their defence,
while the whole strength of the Empire would be brought to bear in order to protect the interests of the
colonies--- is it reasonable that the question whether or not their Parliament has gone beyond the
powers delegated to it, in some matter in which a foreign country—not one of Her majesty’s possessions
is concerned should be settled without an appeal to the Privy council; for these and other reasons but I
have stated the principal (p 66) ones- Her Majesty’s Government as soon as they obtained the Bill from
the Premiers , were desirous of making some amendments. There were several points in regard to which
we desired to make changes, but this was the principal one; and we cordially invited the governments of the
federating colonies to send delegates to this country to represent them , to give the necessary explanations and
to assist us with information in the course of the passage of this Bill through the House. We must joyfully
acknowledge that the Australian colonies could not have paid us a greater compliment than to send us
gentlemen so able and so representative as those who constitute the delegation; and I am delighted to say
that, whatever differences may have arisen upon such points as this to which I have been referring , our
personal relations, ever since their arrival have been of the most cordial and friendly description. Now, most
unfortunately, as we think, when the delegates arrived in this Country we found they held themselves
precluded by their mandate--- by the fact that a referendum had been taken on the bill , and that as they
contended, public opinion had been expressed--- from accepting any amendments at all. They argued, and
they have argued since, that the result of the referendum upon the question of this Bill should or should
not pass , whether there should be a federation or should not, did in fact imply agreement with every
line and every word of the bill. Of course, holding that view, it became impossible that we should come to
full agreement. It is true that in the first instance the delegates used languages which filled our minds with
hope, because they said that they interpreted their mandate as one to get this bill passed intact if they could,
and, if not, with the slightest amendment possible. But unfortunately, they have not been able to tell us that
the slight amendments which they had in view included anything so important as the amendment which we
have thought it our duty to make. In these circumstances the next step was to ask the Governments of the
Federating colonies to enlarge the instructions of their delegates and that was done in a paper which has
been presented to the House it is interpreted by the delegates as a confirmation (.p 68) and approval of the
attitude which they have taken up. Of course everyone must be allowed to offer his own opinion on the
matter. I confess that to me it does not seem to go as far as the delegates think. It is not in effect so
irreconcilable, because while it does undoubtedly indicate the desire of the Premiers that the bill should pass
as it stands, while it does undoubtedly indicate their opinion that they have no authority to accept the
amendment, it does not seem to me to imply that if Her Majesty’s Government upon its own
responsibility , were to make the amendment suggested there would be any strong feeling in Australia ,
but that the people and Governments of Australia would be prepared in all good feeling be prepared to
accept the suggestion.
END QUOTE
QUOTE

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill Hansard p 758 21 may 1900 United Kingdom Parliament.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill
(Second Reading)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr J Chamberlain., )
In moving the second reading of this Bill I want to call the special attention of the house to the
amendments which we have embodied in the Bill., and which constitute the difference between our Bill
and the bill as originally presented to us by the delegates from Australia. I mentioned in introducing the
Bill that there were a certain number of of drafting alterations no serious importance to which the delegates
had agreed, and I do not propose to refer to them again. They are very trifling in importance. But there were
two points of very considerable importance. The first was the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act
to the legislation off the Commonwealth Parliament. We considered that a doubt had been created as to
whether that would apply to the work of the Commonwealth. That doubt arises entirely from the introduction
into the Commonwealth bill of a definition of the word “ colony” as a “colony or province” which seemed
therefore, to exclude “commonwealth’. But having had the advantage of further discussions with the
delegates , Her Majesty’s Government and the delegates from Australia entirely agreed that the best way of
meeting this difficulty and of removing any doubt will be to omit from the Bill the words defining a colony.
When those words go out the doubt which they raised will cease to exist, and it will be unnecessary to make
any further alteration. So far as this point is concerned we have come to a perfectly satisfactory agreement.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
I stated in the first place , that we had come to the conclusion that, whatever our opinions might be as
to the value or advantage of any particular provision in the Australian bill, so long as it dealt with
Australian Interests , it would not be wise or desirable that the Imperial parliament should interfere.
We might make suggestions, but if they were not accepted on behalf of the Australian Colonies we did not
think it was our duty to interfere or insist on amendments against their settled convictions. On the other
hand, I have also ventured to lay down as an important principle that wherever Her majesty’s subjects
outside Australia or of Her Majesty’s possessions outside Australia or our relations with foreign
countries were concerned—in those cases we were acting as trustees for the Empire and we had a right
to claim that the existing power of appeal should in no way be lessened or affected.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
I pointed out, also, what perhaps from the Imperial point of view was of even greater importance, that
questions of foreign relations which might arise in many subjects which were permitted in the Federal
Parliament to legislate upon would also be excluded from all possibility of appeal to the Privy Council. It
seemed to me that that was a matter of so much importance to the United Kingdom especially and to the
empire at large that we could not ; in consideration of the duty and responsibility imposed upon us agree to
the Bill as it stood in that respect.
We endeavoured to meet these objections , which we ourselves felt, and to make what we believed was the
intention of the Australian people and of their representatives more clear by amendments which have been
embodied in the Bill and which are made certainly not in our interests alone, but in pursuance of that
trusteeship to which I attach so much importance. I ventured to say when I was introducing the Bill that the
proposal of these amendments that Her Majesty’s Government was not likely to be in any way resented by the
people of Australia. I repudiated altogether the notion that they would be construed as a flouting of their
representatives or a rebuff to themselves. I said there was no fear whatever , in my opinion, of any serious
conflict between ourselves and our kinsmen in Australia and that the discussions had been, and would be,
conducted throughout in a friendly spirit. My confidence has been , I think wholly justified. These proposal of
ours have been before the people of Australia now for a full week., and anyone who has taken the trouble to
read the reports which have come home to us will be convinced as I am , that our proposals have been
favourably considered in most cases, by the people of Australia.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Parliament of every single State in Australia has , has in its power for the peace, order and good
government of the country, the power, if it pleases to make laws limiting the right of appeal, and that power
is subject to the right of Her majesty to disallow or have have reserved any Bill dealing with this
subject. The delegates contended that as their Constitution specifically refers to the subjects which
alone can be treated by the Federal parliament it was necessary to specifically to mention this subject,
or the Federal parliament would have less power than the constituent States. The reasonableness of
that we fully acknowledged, but we felt that if we specially gave this power by this Constitution we
might be assumed to be giving away the right to reserbvation with regard to this subject. It appeared to
be quite impossible that hereafter we might be accused of breach of faith if, when the Federal
parliament had legislated, we had reserved a Bill under tejh powers given to us in another clause of the
Constitution . The House probably aware what the power of reservation is. When an act passed by a self
governing colony is reserved it is treated as a dead letter. And it does not come into operation at all unless in
the course of the next two years Her majesty formally signifies Her assent. She has not however , to
announce her disallowance, or to veto the Act; She has only to refrain from allowing it. Now the delegates
have agreed that if the power to deal with the subject is maintained in the bill , there shall be added this
proviso. ----- “Provided that in every such case such Act shall be reserved for Her Majesty’s pleasure”
So that whereas all other legislation of the commonwealth comes under the general rule that it may be
reserved , if the Commonwealth should deal with this specific and delicate subject then the proviso is that it
must be reserved. And of Course, Her Majesty’s Government for the time being will have the
opportunity of considering what the nature of the legislation is, and what advice they should give to Her
Majesty in regard to it.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
I hope that its very early passage may then be anticipated. I hope that the Bill will be passed unanimously and
I firmly believe that in that case, even without any such further alteration as Queensland and Western
Australia desire, the House may pass the bill with full conviction that in sanctioning the union of Australia
they have in no way impaired the unity of the empire, and we shall be able to contemplate the
consummation of this great achievement without the slightest drawback to the pride which we feel in
the wisdom and the patriotism of our Australian kinsmen. Motion made and Question proposed, “That
the bill be read a second time”. Mr Secretary Chamberlain
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL ( Sir Robert Finlay, Inverness Burghs)
END QUOTE
QUOTE
It will be obvious to the House that the question of delegation of powers may be an Imperial interest. It
may be of the utmost moment to the Empire to know whether a certainpower has been delegated to to
the Colonial legislature. On the other hand the question of how such powers are to be distributed as between
the general legislature of the Central Government of the Australian Dominion of the queen and the
legislative Governments of the States is a matter which concerns Australia. The extent of the delegation may
be an Imperial Interest. With regard to the question of distribution, the question as to the limits of the powers
of the Commonwealth and the states inter se , questions of the limits of the powers of the Legislative
governments of the States as between themselves – even on those questions there may be a great desire under
certain circumstances , to appeal to the Privy Council. Her Majesty’s Government have found it their duty to
safeguard and secure the possibility of a right of appeal to an Imperial tribunal in every case where the
interests of the empire hold, or the interests of Her Majesty’s subjects in any other parts of the dominion are
affected.
END QUOTE
So you see, Australian laws remain under British law as this was all along intended.

Mr. ISAACS.-One is inconsistent with the other, but I am looking at this also. I should like to get as much
power as possible in this Bill. At the same time, I should not like to send it home saying that something
should be altered which the Imperial Parliament will be disinclined to do seeing that the universal
assent of the colonies has been obtained. Is the Imperial Parliament likely to assent to this-that the
Federal Parliament may exercise, at the request of any state, any of the powers which the Imperial
Legislature may exercise? That is to say, it might exercise powers which might be in conflict with
treaties, Imperial legislation, and so on, or, at all events, with the principles of Imperial legislation. The
clause is very wide, and wants some modification.
And
Mr. OCONNOR.-
For instance, if you wish to deal with the question of legislation regarding Chinese or Japanese actually
here, there would be very little difficulty, but if you wish to make a law dealing with [start page 235]
their introduction into the state, you may be brought face to face with the obligations of treaties entered
into by Great Britain and other difficulties of that kind which cannot be surmounted.
As a matter of fact any Commonwealth of Australia legislation could still be nullified by any
State to be enforced;
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates [page 354]
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular
state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to
exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against
it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its
condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally
unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be
preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of
a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this
Constitution.
* By gosh, for a person who claims not to have had any formal education in legal studies you
certainly know how to find things. Does this mean that the State Court could refuse to convict a
person allegedly in breach of Commonwealth law if it deemed that the Commonwealth law is
unjust and should not be enforced?
**#** Precisely. The Commonwealth of Australia is a centralised limited government but in

essence it has no constitutional powers to dictate State courts how they have to conduct their
proceedings or even dictate if the Court should or shouldn’t convict a person. Ultimately this
remains within the sovereign powers of a State. It is for this also that the Commonwealth of
Australia as no judicial powers to imprison citizens as this remains with the States. Therefore
there is no such as ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION by the Commonwealth of Australia.
* Moment Gary, the High Court of Australia did decide otherwise, didn’t it?
**#** As I stated before my view is my granddaughters would make more sense in that regard
then all of the judges of the High Court of Australia combined. As the Framers of the
Constitution made clear the ADMINISTRATION of Commonwealth law enforcement remained
to be with the States. Meaning that refugees cannot be summary detained, as there must be DUE
PROCESS OF LAW and a “judicial determination” is required before anyone can be
detained/deported. This ought to make common sense, in particular how people have been
detained/deported such as Cornelia Rau, Vivian Solon Alvarez and a lot of others.
Mr. KINGSTON.-
I know that in this respect I differ a good deal from many with whom I generally work in sympathy, but the
view which I venture to propound is this-that if you do not like these people you should keep them out,
but if you do admit them you should treat them fairly-admit them as citizens entitled to all the rights
and privileges of Australian citizenship.
Mr. TRENWITH.-And compel them to observe the same rules as other citizens?

Mr. KINGSTON.-Yes, compel them to observe the same rules as other citizens, but impose no special
rules intended for their special injury and to emphasize what some may consider the degradation of
their position.
The Rule of Law (DUE PROCESS OF LAW and a “judicial decision by a State Court) must be
applied to refugees as much as to others. The issue is that you cannot merely have people
detained/deported by the say so of some office worker, when the person might, say, be a natural
born Australian and happens to have the unfortunate characteristics of people, say, of Asia or the
Middle East to condemn them as being illegal in the Commonwealth of Australia. This is where
the Magna Charta comes into place, and so other provisions such as the Bill of Rights, the so
called STAR CHAMBER COURT Act 1640 and others. We cannot and never must tolerate any
person to be arbitrary detained/deported merely because it may suit the political objective of some
Government of the Day. We must ensure that above all the legislative provisions are
constitutionally valid and are appropriately enforced. Not abused and misused for political gain.
* I can follow what you are making known but then why is it that the judges of the High Court of
Australia are seemingly getting it so wrong?
**#** My friend, those judges may never even have the slightest understanding and
comprehension of what is intended by the Framers of the Constitution. Take for example the
argument Kirby J put in the Sykes v Cleary case as to “OFFICE OF PROFIT”, he seemed to
me to refer to the 1897 Constitution Convention Debates totally ignoring what had transpired
previously to it. But what was not only relevant but critical as to understand the issue. Now, as I
did already extensively explain in one of our previous book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
That Section 43 and 44 of the Constitution refers to “chosen” as being chosen by the Governor-
General” and not means “elected” as a candidate and that “OFFICE OF PROFIT” only related
to holding an “OFFICE OF PROFIT” with the Commonwealth at the time of being “chosen” to
take up the seat in Federal parliament and or when holding a seat in the Federal Parliament, then
clearly Phil Cleary being in an OFFICE OF PROFIT with a State Government had no conflict
of interest and was entitled to remain in the Federal Parliament.
There is absolutely no issue with a Member sitting in the Federal Parliament to stand for election
for the other House. The issue is that Section 43 prevents the Member of Parliament to take up a
seat in the new seat elected for in the Parliament and neither can be “chosen” to take up the seat,
regardless if having been the successful candidate in the election unless this member first resigns
(vacate) the seat already being held. It is just that it appears to me judges are, so to say, cherry
picking what they want to use, perhaps to suit their political masters and ignore to present a
judgment that truly reflects what the intentions of the Framers was.
* Have you consider, they might lack the time to research matters as you do?
**#** Look, there is absolutely no excuse for judges to claim they haven’t got the time to
research matters or that their staff lack the time and ability to do so. I have for long promoted the
creation of the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the
Government, the people, the parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations
and it is well overdue to have this OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN.

* How would it operate?
**#** That is to address in the next Chapter, as it is better to have this set out appropriately. But
in the meantime lets not create nonsense of excuses for judges. The High Court of Australia was
specifically created to ensure it would appropriately interpret the intentions of the Framers, and
there can be no excuse for it not to do so. Simply get rid of any judge that is incompetent in that
regard!
* You can’t sack them, can you?
**#** They could be removed by the Parliament for their incompetence!
* That is the problem, isn’t it? The Parliament must agree.
**#** I know what you mean. Unlikely are political masters going to pursue this. That is why we
need so badly the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN as an independent body. Then without
political input we may just finally get the benefits of our “new Magna Charta”.
* The what?
**#** Just check this out and you may understand what I mean;
Hansard records 17 -3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates

Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
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.
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 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.
Again;
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.
And
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.
* So, what I understand is, that the Commonwealth of Australia is simply a representation of the
States for so far it was given their powers but further it has absolutely nothing else on power? For
example, it could not enforce a drivers license for the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia
because it has no such legislative powers. Is that basically right?
**#** You are seemingly getting the message and understanding it all. Powers not specifically
given are prohibited!

As like the European Union, that is a POLITICAL UNION among European States, the
Commonwealth of Australia is likewise a POLITICAL UNION among the States.
Each POLITICAL UNION can only exercise the powers given to them and no more.
As I said before, we are and remain under British law and for this also we are subject to any
EUROPEAN UNION legislation for so far it does not conflict with our constitutional provisions.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such
considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English
Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark
(Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment
IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168
It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is
complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) is.
The United Kingdom by signing the European Union treaty and so its acceptance of its
Constitution, in effect has ensured that the right of the British Parliament to compliment the
Constitution of Singapore was never extinguished.
Again:
"law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other
enactment or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore
the right of any Parliament to amend its own legislation, including a Constitution can only be
limited by the provisions of the Constitution, but the right to provide complimentary legislation,
such as the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the ECHR”) is clearly not avoided, as any legislation applicable to British law
automatically applies to all British law, with the exception that constitutional law cannot be
interfered with by implied amendments.
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin)
(24th April, 2002)
53. In support of his submission that, for Article 6(1) to be engaged, it was necessary for the relevant
proceedings to be “directly decisive” of the civil rights in question, Mr Sales referred to and relied upon
what he described as the “consistent” body of European jurisprudence on this point over the last thirty years
(see paragraph 41 of Mr Sales’ written skeleton argument) in cases such as Ringeisen -v- Austria (No. 1)
(1971) 1 EHRR 455 at paragraph. 94, Albert & Le Compte -v- Belgium (1983) 18 EHRR 533 at paragraph
28, Benthem -v- Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 1, Boden -v- Sweden (1987) 10 EHRR 367 at paragraph 30,
H -v- France (1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraphs 46-47 and Barmer-Schafroth -v- Switzerland (1997) 25
EHRR 598 at paragraph 32. In the course of his submissions, Mr Sales referred to the following passage in
the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) in the case of Enzi -v- Austria
(Application no. 29268/95) as a convenient and succinct statement of the relevant principles of law upon
which he relied:
“The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute over “rights and obligations”
which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law and, if so,
whether this “right” was of a “civil” character within the meaning of Article 6(1) (see the Oerlemans
-v- the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991 … paragraphs 45-49). Article 6(1) only applies if
the right is civil in character (see the Benthem -v- the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985 …
paragraph 32). The “dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the existence of a
right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be
directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being
sufficient to bring Article 6(1) into play (see the Allan Jacobson -v- Sweden judgment of 25 October
1989 … paragraphs 66-67, and the Masson and Van Zon -v- the Netherlands judgment of 28
September 1995 … at paragraph 44).”

* I understand that there are people arguing that Australia should have a Bill or Rights and a
Human Rights Act but it seems to me by what you explained we already got the lot!
**#** If course we have but the problem is to get people to use common sense to understand this.
Here we have a Federal Parliament, of which none are constitutionally and legally validly elected
in 2001 and 2004 making up laws about terrorism, under the umbrella of ASIO Act amendments,
and having people charged for alleged terrorism while they have no such constitutional powers in
the first place.
* What? Are you saying the legislation is unconstitutional and/or illegal?
**#** Well, you tell me how on earth the Federal Parliament, apart of being unconstitutionally
operating, could possibly deal with the so called terrorism under ASIO? It simply is an utter and
sheer nonsense! Let the Federal Government first prove under which constitutional powers they
do legislate, after all is that not, so to say, the first port of call?
* What is terrorism, I ask?
**#** That is a very good question. The Framers of the Constitution only once referred to
TERRORISM and constitutionally this means where the Government of the Day seek to force
the Senate to vote for a Bill without allowing it sufficient time to debate the Bill before voting.
* I think you did not understand my question. I was asking what terrorism means?
**#** I just told you, constitutionally it means the Government of the Day to terrorize the Senate
to try to force it to vote for a Bill (proposed law) without allowing it sufficient time to debate the
Bill.
* You mean to say that this was the only form of TERRORISM they were talking about?
**#** That is right. So, it is nonsense to argue that people who may have certain adverse
intentions then are TERRORIST, as it simply is outside the legislative powers of the
Commonwealth of Australia. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution also made it perfectly clear
that for example retrospective legislation and/or referendum would not be permissible because it
would basically turn a person into a criminal having had a certain conduct at the time being lawful
but afterwards made unlawful.
* Is that meaning that any Federal legislation to act retrospective against the so-called terrorist is
unconstitutional?
**#** Correct.
* Excuse me, are you trying to free the people currently before the Courts about their alleged
terrorist activities?
**#** Nothing to do with that. I am all about that if we want to enforce laws we must make sure
the laws themselves are constitutionally valid and enforceable. Take for example this Jihad Jack
Thomson who was convicted. Now, did for example the trial judge make clear to the jury that
they had the right to NULLIFY Commonwealth law as the Framers of the Constitution made
clear they were entitled upon or was it simply that the jury was deceived and by this ended up
convicting a man who never in the first place should have been charged, let alone convicted.
* What do you know about the case?
**#** Basically nothing.
* How then can you argue about his charges?
**#** I do not need to know the details. For example, I understood he was charged for altering
details in his passport.
* Yes, it seem he did so!
Well, as I understand it he is an Australian (British national by naturalization) and as such the

Federal government has absolutely no powers to deny him to leave or enter the Commonwealth of
Australia. Now, if they issue him a passport then as long as he does not alter his personal details
to try to fabricate some other details I view it is immaterial as to if he may or may not have altered
any visa or other details as it is quite frankly none of the business of the Federal Government
where he went! That is his personal liberty and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by
the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states. We do not propose to
interfere with them in this Constitution. We leave that amongst the reserved powers of the states, and,
therefore, having done nothing to make insecure the rights of property and the rights of liberty which at
present exist in the states, and having also said that the political rights exercisable in the states are to be
exercisable also in the Commonwealth in the election of representatives, we have done all that is necessary.
Again;
The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with
the states.
Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia has absolutely no business in if I were to travel to

whatever country, and I hold it my right to change any visa markings to avoid the Commonwealth
of Australia to get to know what my private movements were. Therefore, if this happened with
Jihad Jack Thomas then I view there was absolutely no justification in that charge.
As for accepting monies, as I understood was an issue, again, this is simply beyond the
constitutional powers of the Commonwealth of Australia and again I could not see how any
charges could stand up in that regard.
* But didn’t he get convicted?
**#** In my view his lawyers may simply not have realized what I just explained to you! Simple
as that. Now we get reports about officers of the Immigration Department invading States, and
rounding up what is called illegal immigrant. Perhaps it ought to be considered that this in itself is
totally unconstitutional and so illegal. They have absolutely no constitutional powers to operate
within the States. But that is another long story already extensively canvassed in my books such
as;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
Lets make it very clear that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a country, State, Colony,
dominion, kingdom, republic, empire, etc as simply it is and remains no more but a POLITICAL
UNION to have transferred to it certain LEGISLATIVE POWERS from all the States.
* If you say it is not a country, etc, then how can it have the rights of a sovereign in legislative
provisions?
**#** That is another matter all together. It is a sovereign when it is acting on behalf of the States
in the powers given in the Constitution. It is being the States in that regard.
* What then the Territories? If the Commonwealth of Australia is not a country who then owns
the Territories?
**#** The Territories are jointly owned by the States and the Commonwealth of Australia is the
vehicle to provide for appropriate legislative provisions for this as a quasi State. But that is going
off to deep into matters we really cannot afford to attend to for purpose of this book, and we need
not to do so as it is already set out in our previous books very extensively.
The same with Industrial Relations, the Commonwealth of Australia’s new purported Industrial
Relations laws are unconstitutional as the Company legislative powers have nothing to do with
Industrial Relations that fall within State legislative powers. But just look at the correspondence
of 26-7-2005 I forwarded to John Howard and that correspondence extensively did set this out.
* Well, did the Premiers know about that correspondence?
**#** Yes, as copies were emailed to them also at the same time!
* Can you prove this?
**#** I always send myself a copy of every email I send out, so that I know it was send, and I
received a copy and who it was sent to!
* I noticed you talk about Premiers, is that different then being a Prime Minister?
**#** Constitutionally a Prime Minister is the Premier. For example prior to Federation they
were referring to the Prime Minister and in other times to the same person being the Premier.
Both meaning really being the first Minister appointed with a request to form a Government, that
is to get Members of Parliament to join in Government to advise the Governor or in the Federal
system the Governor-General in the administration of the Colonies (now States) or in the federal
environment the Governor-General. Contrary to popular belief, a Prime Minister is not elected
by all electors as he merely is elected by the electors in the seat he stood for as a candidate. It is
his fellow party members who elect him as being the leader of the party. Then being the leader, he
gets normally chosen by the Governor-General to form a Government, if the Governor-General
desires to do so. It generally is the leader of the party holding the majority of seats in the House of
Representatives, but with John Kerr we saw, he appointed Malcolm Fraser instead, even so he did
this for unconstitutional purposes, in that he did it to have the Senate passing supply, which was
beyond the powers of a Governor-General to do so. He could prorogue the Parliament and the
dissolve the House of Representatives as to break a deadlock, that existed, but he had no
constitutional powers to have another person appointed for the sake to have certain bills passed as
by that he interferes with the political processes himself. The moment you have a Governor-
General sacking, so to say, a Prime Minister and then give the job to his opponent for the sake of
passing certain bills then you give the Governor-General as being the Queens representative the
power to manipulate his powers to interfere with the political processes.
What John Kerr could have done, and I view should have done long before this was to advise he
would rescind the Commission of Edward Cough Whitlam as Prime Minister he caused undue
hardship to the population. Whitlam then could have acted in a way and if he could not achieve
the passing of supply could have recommended an DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. Supply bills
require to be passed before the 1st of July when it is to commence. Therefore John Kerr removing
Whitlam on 11 November 1975 means John Kerr himself didn’t know what he was doing. Supply
Bills, once implemented, cannot be amended! They are in place for the entire financial year. If
therefore Whitlam was running out of money then John Kerr, so to say, had been asleep at the
wheel, as he as Governor-General was in fact the “ADMINISTRATOR”, the CHIEF
EXECUTOR” and as such should have all along kept an eye on the finances. The Federal
executives are headed by the Governor-General, and the Ministers of the Crown are all working
for the Queen, so the Governor-General to advise him how to manage the Commonwealth of
Australia.
Michael Jeffrey therefore as Governor-General acted in my view with treachery and treason
against the Queen, for allowing John Howard to continue the armed occupation of Iraq even so no
formal DECLARATION OF WAR was ever published.
A problem is, as I view it, that we do not have any properly appointed Governor-General, and so
he appears to be more some political lapdog of whatever Prime Minister is in power, and this also
is why instead of having the race provisions in subsection 51(xxvi) used to prevent cheap
coloured workers taking over Australians their jobs, we have achieved the opposite. It is precisely
contrary to the cause of federation how it is now being done. As was made clear that the race
provisions could not be used against Australians, other then now against Aboriginals because of
the 1967 con job referendum having them now like “aliens” allowed to be discriminated against.

Mr. KINGSTON.-
I know that in this respect I differ a good deal from many with whom I generally work in sympathy, but the
view which I venture to propound is this-that if you do not like these people you should keep them out,
but if you do admit them you should treat them fairly-admit them as citizens entitled to all the rights
and privileges of Australian citizenship.
Mr. TRENWITH.-And compel them to observe the same rules as other citizens?
Mr. KINGSTON.-Yes, compel them to observe the same rules as other citizens, but impose no special
rules intended for their special injury and to emphasize what some may consider the degradation of
their position. Sir, I think that in connexion with this coloured races question we should do whatever we can
for the purpose of keeping out coloured races, and I recollect with considerable interest and some pride that
I had the pleasure of being associated with Mr. Deakin at the Chinese Conference in 1888, when an Australian
policy was agreed to-a policy [start page 247] which had the effect, to a very considerable extent, of limiting
the introduction of these coloured people. I think that subsequent events have shown, not only the wisdom of
that policy, but also that, if it had a defect, its only defect was in not going sufficiently far.
Mr. DEAKIN.-Hear, hear.

*Gee, I can say I learned a lot about this all and I am really looking forward to learn some more.
**#** Well lets go then to the next Chapter.


Chapter 001 - p19 - Creation of The Constitution

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chapter 001 - p19 - Creation of The Constitution

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chapter 001 CREATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

* What does this mean?

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 3 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 3

* And do Henry the VIII powers also apply also in Australia?

**#** No, it was actually a specific British provision.

* That is a bit harsh, isn’t it?

* How do you know that?

Page 4 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 4

Hansard 26-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 6 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 6

Page 7 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 7

Page 9 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 9

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr J Chamberlain., )

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

**#** Precisely. The Commonwealth of Australia is a centralised limited government but in

Page 12 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 12

Page 13 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 13

* You can’t sack them, can you?

**#** They could be removed by the Parliament for their incompetence!

* That is the problem, isn’t it? The Parliament must agree.

Hansard records 17 -3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates

Page 14 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 14

Page 15 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 15

* What? Are you saying the legislation is unconstitutional and/or illegal?

* What is terrorism, I ask?

**#** Basically nothing.

* How then can you argue about his charges?

* Yes, it seem he did so!

Well, as I understand it he is an Australian (British national by naturalization) and as such the

Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia has absolutely no business in if I were to travel to

* But didn’t he get convicted?

* Well, did the Premiers know about that correspondence?

* Can you prove this?

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. DEAKIN.-Hear, hear.

**#** Well lets go then to the next Chapter.

Page 19 of Chapter 001 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 19

Вам также может понравиться

# No, it was actually a specific British provision.

# Precisely. The Commonwealth of Australia is a centralised limited government but in

# They could be removed by the Parliament for their incompetence!

# Basically nothing.

# Well lets go then to the next Chapter.