Chapter 006 - p36 - The Constitution Is A PERPETUAL LEASE

Chapter 006 The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE?
* Gary, lets have a look what you are stating about this PERPETUAL LEASE, shall we?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, now lets quote Chapter, 034O (published on 17-3-2007);
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

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
Gary, isn’t this a masterstroke of a genius by you to expose the unconstitutionality of the
purported Australian Act 1986?
INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as my email of 28-2-2007 to Mr. Zachary Douglas indicates the

Constitution is above the Parliament and as such the Commonwealth of Australia could not enact
a Constitution or purported Constitution! The moment it could enact a Constitution then no
longer is a referendum required to amend the Constitution! But let me quote my alternative to
Nick Hobson’s “Is the constitution safe” set out, which may further explain that no matter what
the Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE, which cannot be interfered with by any Parliament
as only the People have the right to amend it in the manner provided for in Section 128 of the
Constitution.
Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
“In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give
good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the
conspiracy.”
Therefore any politician, lawyer/judge, etc who acts to undermine, erode or otherwise seek to
deny Australians of their constitutional rights, such as by the purported Australia Act in my view
could be held to conspire for TREASON and other criminal issues, as after all it is to seek to rob
the People of their right to the British Crown and other rights.
The meaning of “treason” must be considered in the perception existing at the time of the
Framers of the Constitution.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
Mr. DIBBS:
We have already made certain provision, partially of a federal character, to assist the Imperial Government in
the protection of our shores from without; but let us set our faces as a young nation-if I may use the word
"nation" in advance-against standing armies; let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of
anything like a military despotism. We are met here under the Crown, and I must say that, as one
possessing a slight tinge of republican notions, as one who sees that the future of Australia is to be what
was prophesied of it fifty years ago, by poets who have written of what the future of Australia is to be-
having a certain tinge of republicanism in my nature, the result naturally of my being a descendant of
an Englishman, I was surprised to find a gentleman occupying a position under the Crown proposing
what 100 years ago would have been simply regarded as high treason. Why, the other day the hon.
member, Mr. Munro, made a proposal with regard to one phase of the question which made me ejaculate,
"One strand of the painter has gone."
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
Page 1 of Chapter 006 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
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 liberties of
our people-then, Sir, I feel in my heart that we are asked to reverse a century of development; that we are
asked to deny an absolute and fundamental principle of our political existence-that we are asked, in short, to
do what not only is inexpedient but utterly impossible. To stand here, sent as we are by the people of these
colonies, and to forget the struggles and the triumphs which have made our constitutional system what it is-at
once the pride and the hope of millions of our fellow subjects in various parts of the Empire, and the
admiration, nay, the envy of other nations, both unitary and federal, who have striven in vain to imitate its
excellencies-would be to earn for ourselves-I say it with all respect-and to justly earn, the contempt and the
execration of those whose trust we bear to this Convention.
Sir PHILIP FYSH.-I am going to suggest another alternative. The suggestion made that Western Australia
would have the option of collecting higher duties on foreign imports, is not likely to give them the revenue
they need. But it has been suggested-and I regret there almost seems to be, in some minds, treason in the
suggestion-that Western Australia should, at any rate for five years to come, in connexion with the collection
of her customs duties, have a decreasing or sliding scale on intercolonial products. I know it has been regarded
as almost treason against the Constitution that we should within the compact for a uniform Tariff think of one
colony which does not give thorough intercolonial free-trade.
Sir GEORGE GREY:
Let me just give one illustration of this. I was arranging for the federation of all South Africa-
triumphantly arranging it-certainly all the states, I believe, but one would have joined, and that one
would almost immediately afterwards have probably come in-but when it was heard of, the government
then in power, and the opposition at home, were alike filled with dread at such a federation as was
contemplated. It was said that the man who contemplated that was a dangerous man, and he must be
got rid of, and without a moment's warning I was dismissed from office as Governor and High
Commissioner of the Cape. Well, there was one person in the realm who thought differently. Afterwards,
within a few days, the ministry were put out in consequence of a quarrel with Lord Palmerston-I think it was
within twelve days-and the first thing that was said to the new ministry was, "That man is right; you will yet
long to do what he could have done, and you will be sorry that it was not done; reinstate him in his position."
It was the Queen who spoke, and what was her feeling towards her people at large? As the Prince Consort
explained the matter to myself, they felt the necessity of openings for the poor, for the adventurous. They
thought no wrongful efforts should ever be made to extend an empire, that, so long as the people of Great
Britain, urged by their indomitable energy, kept pushing [start page 142] on themselves, winning new races,
winning new countries to join the great confederation of English people, so long would it be wrong for the
sovereign to injure her people by saying they should not go to these new homes, they should not open these
new places for commerce, that they must remain shut up in a small and continually decreasing empire at
home, as it would have been, if the policy had been acted upon of striking off place after place.
And
Sir GEORGE GREY: If that is not done, of course we act against experience. I hear hon. gentlemen say
"No"; but they must recollect that it was foreseen that dire results would follow from the adoption of another
system, and that those dire results did follow, and, with that [start page 138] example before us, it appears very
doubtful if we ought not, pursuing the course of wisdom, to take steps which will prevent a repetition of the
disasters which took place in the United States. Some other plan of doing it may be devised; but the object
should be attained in some way or other without subjecting ourselves to the chances of future great
disaster.
It is therefore clear that “treason” was held to go against the spirit of the Constitution.
While it may be argued that the Queen travelled to the Commonwealth of Australia as to give
Royal Assent as Queen of Australia, in view that the Constitution only recognised the British
Crown as was embedded in the Constitution then any purported Royal Assent given in the name
of the Queen of Australia is and must be regarded as being ULTRA VIRES. It never was
intended to be part of the PERPETUAL LEASE, that is embedded in the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

Now lest quote the response to “Is the Constitution safe” by Nick Hobson, in that it does not
address the numerous legal issues Nick Hobson raises but rather address the issues from basics.
After all, why waste time to argue if a motor vehicle illegally parked in your drive way is ash-
grey, or some other grey, it is simply irrelevant to the issue that the motor vehicle in the first place
is illegally parked in your drive way regardless of the colour it may have.
Likewise, why argue about the statements of judges as to what they may consider to be applicable
where it is all irrelevant as I am not concerned what for example Section 51(1) of the Australia
Act may or may state as if it is intended to go against the spirit of the PERPETUAL LEASE
(Constitution) then the various Sections are of no importance.
QUOTE The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE.

In response to the “Is the Constitution safe” by Nick Hobson
"Australian Republic Unplugged" <support@statusquo.org>
4-3-2007
The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE.
I have read through the document “Is our Constitution safe” and while there is no doubt by me
that a great research has been put into preparation of the document, to me it lacks substance as to
the validity of the Australian Act (UK) and/or Australian Act (Cth) or in that regarding other acts
such as the Westminster Act.
The assumption is that the British Parliament could legislate in regard of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) at its own free will. That is where the critical error is made
by numerous lawyer/judges/politicians, etc.
Unlike any other British Act this Constitution was the product of the consent of the People of
Australia. As my books already extensive set out the numerous debates quotations and each book
in Chapter 33 contains the Hansard records of the Debates, there is no need to extensively refer to
it other then to make some simple quotations as I do below.
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten
The first thing is that the Constitution is not just a written Constitution but most of the
Constitution is in unwritten form.
No one in his right mind therefore could interpret the intensions of the Constitution and how it
applies unless the person has extensively researched the unwritten part of the Constitution.
The Framers (Delegates) of the Constitution themselves made clear from time to time that the
Debates were to be consulted as to their intentions expressed with the written constitution. They
specifically desired to keep the written constitution to a minimum as they made clear the more
they were to put into it the more lawyers would have a field day with every word used.
Many so called “experts” who have never bothered to research the true intentions of the Framers
of the Constitution who happen to have some law degree or otherwise may be teaching law tend
to give their spin-doctor explanation as to what is constitutionally applicable even so some of
their comments are sheer and utter constitutional nonsense. They rely upon ill-conceived
statement of others who as like them relied upon yet other previous ill-conceived
statements/conclusions and on and on it goes. Having a law degree doesn’t make one to be a
“constitutionalist” let alone an expert in constitutional matters. We only have to look at the
lawyers appointed to the High Court of Australia who may have next to no experiences in
constitutional issues let alone comprehend it and yet are sitting there to adjudicate upon
constitutional issues they haven’t got a clue about. The “citizenship” issue is a clear example on
this.
Law degrees merely permits a person to practice law regardless if such a lawyer would fail any IQ
test to have a proper intelligence for the kind of work they are engaged in. lawyers who may not
be able to make it on their own in a law practice may opt to become a lecturer in law at education
facilities and then spread their nonsense to upcoming lawyers. And on and on the problems go.
For example anyone who claimed that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) was discriminatory towards Aboriginals instantly reveals to me to lack substance in his/her
argument not knowing that he/she is talking about and trying to use spin-doctor tactics and other
ill-conceived explanations .
The Constitution, with any faults it may have is and remains to be the property of the people. It is
so to say a PERPETUAL LEASE the Australians have with the British Parliament.
This is the simplistic explanation to give without any spin-doctoring by lawyers/judges/politicians
and others. While a landholder may sell off his assets to others, if however someone had a
PERPETUAL LEASE then the landholder and the new purchaser could do nothing but to
honour the PERPETUAL LEASE.
If the Crown, for example, has entered in a contract with anyone it is bound by this contract and
cannot merely nilly willy ignore the legal implications of the contract.
As shown below we do have a PERPETUAL LEASE in existence with the British Crown and
the British Parliament
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;
This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
Therefore both the British Crown and the British parliament with the Consent of the Australian
Colonies governments approved this PERPETUAL LEASE and as such nothing the British
government or the British Crown could do as to somehow undermine the rights obtained by the
Australian community with this PERPETUAL LEASE.
Mr. HIGGINS.-A number of laws have been held to be unconstitutional in America because of their
reasons and because of their motives. There was a funny case in San Francisco, where a law was passed by the
state that every prisoner, within one hour of his coming into the prison, was to have his hair cut within one
inch of his head. That looked very harmless, but a Chinaman brought an action to have it declared
unconstitutional, and it turned out that the law was actually passed by the Legislature for the express purpose
of persecuting Chinamen.
Mr. BARTON.-That took place under the next clause in this Bill, which is a similar enactment.

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. All I want is, that there should be
no imposition of any observance because of its being religious.
Again;
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.
What we therefore must explore if the motives by the British Parliament, the Commonwealth of
Australia, the States and others were to deny Australians their legal rights of their PERPETUAL
LEASE, or if within the true spirit of the Constitution the enactment of the British parliament can
be deemed just and appropriate.
We also must consider if the British Crown could have legitimately have given Royal Assent to
any British Parliament passed Bill to make it an enactment where it was to undermine the British
Crown’s prerogative rights as provided for in the PERPETUAL LEASE. After all the British
Crown was bound by the PERPETUAL LEASE it had itself consented too.
Weeden v Davidson (1907) 4 CLR 895 at 898 (per Griffith CJ.)
“It is necessary, in construing an act which alters the law, to inquire what was the state of the law before the
alteration was made, what was the mischief intended to be remedied, and what was the nature of the remedy
provided.”
In Constantine v Guilfoyle (1915) 32 W.N. (N.S.W.) 74 per Fergusson

“No doubt it is the duty of the court to look at the object of an act in determining what is the meaning of the
language which the legislature had used; but it is no part of the duty of the court to endeavour to carry out that
object by making something an offence which the legislature itself has not made an offence.”
Ex Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 S.R. N.S.W. 155 at 158; 55 W.N. 63 Jordan C.J.
“This court however must take the act as it finds it, and cannot do violence to its language in order to bring
within its scope, cases, which although within its mischief are not within its words.”
Woolworths v Crotty (1942) 66 CLR 603 at 618 (per Latham CJ)

“The act should be construed according to its intention of the legislature. Where the legislature has stated the
mischief for which the common law did not provide, consideration of the nature and extent of that mischief is
relevant to the interpretation of the act.”
Therefore, if the British parliament and the British Crown provided with the consent of the
Australian Colonies and the People of Australia for the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) to be a PERPETUAL LEASE, only to be amended by Section 128 of the
Constitution then any subsequent legislation that unduly appears to interfere with this
PERPETUAL LEASE can and must be held to be invalid in law for so far it seeks to exercise
powers beyond that provided for in the PERPETUAL LEASE.
QUOTE 16-3-2005 correspondence to Malcolm Turnbull
Hansard 31-3-1891
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in
the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
Again;
Otherwise the constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a
republic, which is no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE 16-3-2005 correspondence to Malcolm Turnbull

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.
themselves.
This is why it was made clear;

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
HANSARD 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
Dr. COCKBURN:
Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty
overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent
bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must
disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a
constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will.
Again;
No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing
its constitution at its own will.
This is why we need 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. Then this OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN can expose what is embedded in the
Constitution!
Only when such an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN is created for every State and the
Commonwealth of Australia will more sense be made out of constitutional issues.
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy 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 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.
Again;
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 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?
Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
It must be clear therefore that the federal Parliament has no constitutional powers to legislate its
own Constitution, as the Australian Act 1986 purports to do as then the Constitution no longer is
above the Parliament! It simply becomes an Act of the federal Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I think an alteration with regard to the rest of the Constitution, what I may call the machinery part,
ought to be much easier than the forms for altering the Constitution with regard to the powers
conferred by the states on the Federal Commonwealth. If a number of the states come together and say-
"We are willing to surrender certain powers to the Central Government,
The purported Australian Act 1986 was not within the powers of any State as the prerogative powers were beyond
State powers.
Mr. GLYNN.-
We ought not to create the evil of making the Judges not merely interpreters, but the extenders of the
Constitution, and we ought to give the Constitution such a degree of elasticity as will render it capable of
being moulded to the changed conditions as time goes on, and prevent the dangerous alternative of judicial
expansion.
And
Mr. ISAACS.-How could it?
Mr. HIGGINS.-It could not. The dead-lock clauses only apply to laws passed by the Parliament.
Mr. DOBSON.-But some honorable members argue that they would apply to a proposal to amend the
Constitution.
Again;

It must therefore also be clear that the Constitution cannot be passed by the Federal parliament
(Commonwealth of Australia) as the Australian Act 1986 purports to do.
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:
The British Parliament cannot withdraw the Constitution and neither replace it, as it purported to
do with the Australian Act as Section 128 prevents this.
Then point out what in your view nevertheless allowed the Australian Act 1986 to replace the
Constitution or in any way seek to undermine our constitutional rights existing since federation?
Remember;
Now what was very important was that the British Government sought to make it very clear it
didn’t want to interfere with the make up of the Constitution as it desired to leave it to be the
product of the Australian people. However reading the Hansard records makes it clear that not
only did they from time to time dictate opposition to certain clauses of the proposed Constitution
Bill but even after the final DRAFT was passed by the people of Australia they made some
amendments to it before it was passed by the British Parliament. And, every Hansard record was
through the then Prime Minister (as they were then referred to) of NSW Lyne passed on to the
British Government, so the British Government desired to keep abreast as to what had been
debated and the intentions of the Delegates.
The various Delegates also referred to the Hansard records of the Debates to be later consulted by
the High Court of Australia as to discover their intentions. It is therefore embedded in the
constitution that it is mandatory for the High Court of Australia to consult the Hansard records of
the Debates as to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
They also made clear that unlike the US constitution they desired to have a living Constitution
that albeit difficult could only be amended by the will of the people. They expressed their
concerns that otherwise the Constitution could be easily amended by the Parliament without
consultation of the electors.
It was also made clear that the Constitution would make a POLITICAL UNION among the
Colonies (now States) for so far that they were permitted to do s but could not interfere with the
judicial processes in the States. The High Court of Australia in its Kable 1996 decision while
referring to the Debates did so to the discussions about the Privy Council and not to 22-9-1897
Debates where it was made clear that the DUE PROCESS OF LAW would remain in State
legislative powers.
While it is true that with the Constitution the Colonies were to be referred to as States, one cannot
however argue that the States are part of the Commonwealth of Australia. As to argue that would
be to infer that there was a total annihilation of the Colonies (now States) to its own sovereignty.
There was no new Dominion created as the colonies were and remained Dominions. There was no
new Country created as the Colonies (now States) remained sovereign countries in their own right
for so far it had not handed over legislative powers to the new created POLITICAL UNION the
Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word 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. The first
clause says-This Act maybe cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act." I assent to all that.
Then comes clause 3, which says it shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's
Most Honorable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not
being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of the colonies enumerated shall be united in
a Federal Constitution under the name of-I say it ought to be "of Australia."
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.
And also consider;

Mr. BARTON.- I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are alike subjects of
the British Crown.
Edmund Barton was born in NSW and later became the Second Prime Minister of Australia
after the first commissioned Prime Minister Mr. Lyne resigned his commission after 6 days
because he could not form a Government. He had been an obstruction to the formation of the
political union, but the Governor-General at the time held to be obligated to commission him to
be the first Prime Minister of the newly to be formed Commonwealth of Australia as Lyne was
the Prime Minister of the oldest colony NSW.
Mr. SYMON.-
Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There
may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
And
Mr. SYMON.-
. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in
the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of
depriving me of citizenship.
And
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, 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).-

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 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 using that term under our own enactments in any of our colonies.
And
Mr. BARTON.-
He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of dealing with the rights of
citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a
state might be worth nothing; or of 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 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."
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of the British
Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That is a power which, with the
consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into legislation by the various colonies, and, of
course, we cannot do less for the Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual 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.
Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 72 (9 December 2003).
Doesn’t address what-so-ever the “State legislative jurisdiction” as to “citizenship”.
Therefore, we have a High Court of Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try
to alter the Constitution by stealth!
It must be clear that the terminology used 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.”
There are numerous other quotations that makes it very clear that Australians (as they then
already were referred in view of the title Australia of the continent) in reality were British
subjects and aliens were to be naturalized by consent of the British Parliament to be made British
subject (nationals).
Various other Hansard quotations were already extensively used in my published books and do
not need to be repeated, safe to say that it shows that the framers of the Constitution referred to
the people coming from India also as being British subjects and so those in Hong Kong, etc. As a
matter of fact because of the still existing WHITE AUSTRALIA policy that is embedded in the
Constitution by way of Subsection 51(xxvi) it was ensured that racism could be continued against
“coloured” people even those who were born in the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit they
protected Aboriginals from being subjected to such racism.
The 1967 con-job referendum changed that all right.
As the Colonies all passed the Constitution Bill, then each and every colony (now State) is
governed to be racist and cannot therefore legislate against racism as the older legislation
triumph! The States cannot defeat the passing of the Constitution Bill where it became a
Commonwealth powers in Subsection 51(xxvi). While personally I oppose any form of racial
discrimination nevertheless while it is permissible in the Constitution then I cannot argue against
it. It is for the electors to amend the Constitution within Section 128 referendum, if that is what
they desire.
The preamble is not itself part of the Constitution, it has in fact no legal meaning at all as the
Framers of the Constitution debated at length but because it was pursued by so many to recognise
God in the pre-amble the Framers of the Constitution not wanting to have the US disaster decided
then that they better made clear by Section 116 that it did not mean that the Commonwealth of
Australia could exercise any legislative powers to dictate religion or otherwise interfere with the
religious practices of anyone.
It was made clear however that without Section 116 there was still no powers for the
Commonwealth of Australia to legislate in any way with religion.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I hope it does, because it will become a very important matter. I should have thought that it
was not within the scope of Congress to pass a law, no matter how righteous, to close the exhibition on
Sunday, but I find, on looking to a number of decisions in the United States, that it has been held again and
again that, because of certain expressions, words, and phrases used in the Constitution, inferential powers are
conferred upon the Congress that go beyond any dreams we have at present. I know that a great many people
have been got to sign petitions in favour of inserting such religious words 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 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 a power to impose on the Federation of Australia any religious
laws. I hope that I shall be excused for having spoken on this matter. I felt that it was only fair that honorable
members should know that there is a damer in these words, if we are to look to the precedent of the United
States. I will help honorable members in putting in any suitable words provided that we have sufficient
safeguards.
Mr. LYNE.-Will you explain, before you sit down, where the particular danger is?
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a
kind of social and religious power over us. We are going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each
state at present has the power to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will
not disturb that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-riding
power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall observe for religious reasons,

and what day they shall not observe for that purpose. The state of Victoria will be able to pass any
Sunday law it likes under my scheme.
And
The states have certain plenary powers, which we do not wish to cut down, except so far as may be
necessary for the purpose of federal government.
“Citizenship” was a legislative power left to the States also.
As Barton made clear;
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."
Again;
that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play
ducks and drakes with it
This, as citizenship governed the franchise of people to vote in State elections. Once the
Commonwealth of Australia could lay its hands upon defining/declaring citizenship it could
simply abolish the States by legislating that no citizens was to vote in State election or other kind
of nonsense.
Also other rights were associated with “Citizenship”.
When one look at the Constitution of Singapore;
QUOTE
PART II
THE REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION
Republic of Singapore.
3.
Singapore shall be a sovereign republic to be known as the Republic of Singapore.
Supremacy of Constitution.
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature
after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of
the inconsistency, be void.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Commonwealth citizenship.
139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every person who is a
citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a Commonwealth citizen in common with
the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
(2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation to a citizen of the
Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies in relation to a Commonwealth
citizen.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Rights, liabilities and obligations.
161. --(1) All rights, liabilities and obligations of Her Majesty in respect of the Government shall on and after
the commencement of this Constitution be rights, liabilities and obligations of the State of Singapore.
(2) In this Article, rights, liabilities and obligations include rights, liabilities and obligations arising from
contract or otherwise, other than rights to which Article 160 applies.

[104
Existing laws.
162. Subject to this Article, all existing laws shall continue in force on and after the commencement of this
Constitution and all laws which have not been brought into force by the date of the commencement of this
Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, be brought into force on or after its commencement, but all such laws
shall, subject to this Article, be construed as from the commencement of this Constitution with such
modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity
with this Constitution.
END QUOTE
Again;
and all laws which have not been brought into force by the date of the commencement of this Constitution
may, subject as aforesaid, be brought into force on or after its commencement, but all such laws shall, subject
to this Article, be construed as from the commencement of this Constitution with such modifications,
adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this
Constitution.
This clearly does provide for the application of the The European Convention for the
protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ECHR”)!
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).”
It ought to be clear that it could not be held that a person of Singaporean nationality somehow
then had the nationality of the Commonwealth (meaning British Commonwealth).
QUOTE
citizen.
END QUOTE

What however was clear by this enactment by the British Parliament was that by virtue of this
Constitution every Singaporean would have the same right as any Australian in regard of being a
citizen in the British Empire (Commonwealth).
The provisions of the Singaporean Constitution;
QUOTE
Rights, liabilities and obligations.
161. --(1) All rights, liabilities and obligations of Her Majesty in respect of the Government shall on and after
the commencement of this Constitution be rights, liabilities and obligations of the State of Singapore.
(2) In this Article, rights, liabilities and obligations include rights, liabilities and obligations arising from
contract or otherwise, other than rights to which Article 160 applies.
[104
Existing laws.
162. Subject to this Article, all existing laws shall continue in force on and after the commencement of this
Constitution and all laws which have not been brought into force by the date of the commencement of this
Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, be brought into force on or after its commencement, but all such laws
shall, subject to this Article, be construed as from the commencement of this Constitution with such
modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity
with this Constitution.
END QUOTE
is not existing in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) this as this
Constitution was never intended to separate the Commonwealth of Australia from the British
Crown. In fact, to have done so would have to cut of the Colonies(States) as the Commonwealth
of Australia is not a country but a limited political union. The European Union likewise is not a
country but a limited political union. It must therefore be very clear that Australians, regardless of
being natural born, naturalized or being aliens, all were British Subjects under the British Crown
albeit not necessarily British nations as if they were “aliens” then they did not attain the British
nationality until within Subsection 51(xix) being naturalized. It must therefore also be very clear
that the Constitution since federation guaranteed that Australians were British subjects under the
British Crown and anyone natural born or naturalized were British nationals.
It also eventuated that for example Chinese who had paid their Poll Tax upon federation were
State citizen and so “Australian citizens” and voted in the first Federal election even so they had
not been naturalized and were and remained aliens. This, as the Delegates were concerned that if
they were to take away the right to vote from “aliens” who had paid the Poll Tax and so entitled
to vote in the Colonies then the Commonwealth Constitution Bill might be rejected by them.
Aboriginals were also referred to as “native Australians” but the term “Aboriginal Australians”
was not used as it is a ridiculous title as if Aboriginals are not Australians.
Sure, Aboriginal-Australians could exist if Aboriginals from other countries were to have settled
in the Commonwealth of Australia and naturalized, as the Delegates did refer to Aboriginals of
other countries.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Hong Kong is undoubtedly a British possession, and a Hong Kong Chinaman is
undoubtedly a native-born British subject. Thus, honorable members will see what difficulties might arise if
the privileges of citizenship of the Commonwealth were extended to all British subjects. If that were done,
we should be landed in a difficulty against which it is well to provide. I think the very best, thing under all the
circumstances is to do-what is recommended by Dr. Quick, and give to the Federal Parliament power to,
legislate on this subject as occasion arises. I have no fear whatever but that they will make wise provisions on
the subject-provisions uniform throughout the Commonwealth-for extending to all British subjects those
privileges which they ought to possess, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the Commonwealth.

Mr. HOLDER.-I accept that statement of the honorable member, but I submit that his proposed new clause
might be interpreted as I interpreted it by some authority, and, in that case, we should be landed in a very
unfortunate position. Dr. Quick's amendment is even worse, because it provides that-
All persons resident within the Common-wealth, being natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and
not under any disability imposed by the Parliament, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth.
Now, it might be easily conceivable that, simply because a man was born under British rule in India, China,
or elsewhere, therefore, of necessity, on arriving in one of these colonies, he could claim citizenship of the
Commonwealth. Is it not a mistake to stereotype in the Commonwealth Bill at this period our opinions on this
subject? Would it not be better to authorize the Federal Parliament to deal with this question, not once only,
but from time to time as circumstances and [start page 1791] conditions may change? I hope that both the
proposals will be withdrawn or negatived, and that at a later stage an opportunity will be given to Dr. Quick to
try again what he tried yesterday, a provision which, as then proposed, or with a slight alteration of the words,
would give to the Federal Parliament power to determine the citizenship of the Commonwealth from time to
time, and thus to meet any changes of conditions, which certainly ought to be met if they arise, but which
cannot then be met if we now arrive at some decision and stereotype it once for all in this Constitution.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I submit there is a still better course open to us, and that is to give
consideration to the amendment proposed by the Assembly of Tasmania, which has received up to the present
time no attention whatever.
Mr. GLYNN.-Not sufficient attention, at all events.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:-
The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory
of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any
law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of its laws.
Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in
mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of
alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act,
which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other
colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who
cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would
debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of
Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes
far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this
clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir
Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than
anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to
define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day
with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth in this connexion. Therefore, I think it would be extremely wise to reject both of these
amendments, with the view, as suggested by Mr. Holder, of getting back, if we can, to the proposal which we
had before us yesterday, and which says exactly what I think we ought to say in connexion with all questions,
namely, that the Parliament shall have the power to deal from time to time, as necessity dictates, with the
question of citizenship, if we are to deal with the matter at all. The clause we have here, proposed by Dr.
Quick, reads as follows:-
All persons resident within the Commonwealth, being natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and
not under any disability imposed by the Parliament, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth. [start page 1792]
I think it has been shown that it would be unwise to insert that provision in the Bill. The Attorney-General of
Victoria suggested that there may be here-indeed experience has shown that there will be-as in various
countries of the world, races within the nation that remain distinct; that do not blend with our people; that are
by their existence and by their rapid increase inimical to the well-being of the whole community. This has
been made very manifest in America. Any student in the history of America must see that the negro
population is a disturbing factor which is increasing with immense rapidity in that country. They had to make
them citizens, but the Americans made a mistake by declaring that the negroes should be citizens.
Mr. SYMON.-They did not make them citizens; they gave them the franchise.
Mr. BARTON.-They were made citizens.
Mr. TRENWITH.-They were constituted citizens under an impulse of generosity that we must all
admire; but the circumstances that have since developed prove that that act was extremely unwise, and
America is only prevented from taking this right of citizenship from the negroes by the rigid cast-iron
character of its Constitution. Now, we are here making a Constitution, and we must be careful not to do
something which may seem for the moment wise, but which may tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth from doing what they, judging from circumstances altogether different from those we
are acquainted with, positively know to be wise. It seems to me we have already power in the
Commonwealth to deal with aliens, and we have power to declare in a certain sense the character of
citizenship in connexion with the form of naturalization that may be adopted.
And
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I agree with what has fallen from the honorable and learned member
(Mr. Isaacs). I think that we made a mistake yesterday when we rejected the amendment of the honorable and
learned member(Dr. Quick), and I trust that before we finally separate, we shall be able to include that
amendment in the Constitution, or, if not, to adopt a provision similar to that which was suggested by the
honorable and learned member (Mr. Glynn), which would have made the clause read as follows:-
A state shall not deny to the citizens of other states the privileges and immunities of its own citizens.
That, I understand, would mean that a Victorian citizen, whether a Chinaman or any one ease, going,
say, into the great province of Western Australia, would be entitled to all the privileges and immunities
of a citizen of Western Australia. If Western Australia had legislated to restrict the rights of Chinese
within her borders, a Chinaman going there would be subject to that restriction, but if no restrictions
had been imposed upon Chinese [start page 1784] residing within Western Australia, it would be
impossible for Western Australia, simply because a Chinaman came from another colony, to treat him
differently from the way in which Chinese residents there were treated. It seems to me an anomaly to
use the word "citizen" in this Constitution, if you neither define it nor make provision for its definition.
I asked the honorable and learned member(Mr. Symon), what was his definition of "citizen," and I
understood him to say that a citizen was a man who had the rights of citizenship. That reminded me of
the definition once given of an archdeacon, who was described as a reverend gentleman who performed
archidiaconal functions. Such a definition may be all very well in humorous conversation, but we have
already been warned about the impropriety of inserting anything of this character in the Constitution. I
trust that we shall make this Constitution perfectly intelligible within its four corners, and I do not
think we can do that without adopting some provision of the kind suggested by the honorable and
learned member (Dr. Quick).
Mr. DOUGLAS (Tasmania).-I take it that what is required is that the position of citizens of the
Commonwealth should remain practically what it is now, and that each citizen, when he went out of his
own state into another, should be liable to the laws of that state, but to no special laws. On the other hand,
he should not be able to carry with him any particular privileges. It seems to me that we should take care to
prevent the states from passing any law which would restrict the rights and liberties of citizens of other states
who happened to come within its borders.
Do note that Dr Quck’s amendment was defeated to provide “citizenship” legislative powers for
the Commonwealth of Australia.

A problem the Delegates also had was that they referred to Afghans, Chinese, etc as being a
“coloured race” rather then a nationality. Their true intention was to mean that Afghans were a
“coloured race” and so fell within Subsection 51(xxvi) legislative powers.
As the Delegates also made clear was that “external affairs” was limited to powers to be
exercised already elsewhere given in the Constitution to the Commonwealth of Australia and
could not be used to make treaties beyond its existing legislative powers. While the High Court of
Australia in the Tasmania Dam case purported otherwise and so argued that the Commonwealth
of Australia could deal with environment, my books have set out extensively that the delegates
specifically left “environment” in the hands of the States albeit recognized that where it related to
existing Commonwealth powers as an indirect power then it could be used. Meaning, that if
“environment” related to say navigation of rivers then it was within the Commonwealth of
Australia legislative powers to deal with this, but not beyond this.
The Delegates did not recognize the Darling being a navigating river but did accept that the
Murray was and the commonwealth then could exercise legislative powers within Section 100 of
the Constitution as to regulate the “allocation” of water.

Hansard 1-2-1898
Mr. HOLDER.-We do not want to deprive New South Wales of any such power. We wish to leave that
colony as free as ourselves to use her rightful share of the water for any purpose she pleases. Who is to
determine what is the rightful share? The Federal Parliament.

Hansard 1-3-1898
[start page 1683]
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.
And
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. 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 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.
Therefore it doesn’t matter if CoAG (Council of Australian Governments) does or doesn’t agree
to referring legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia as it will remain ULTRA
VIRES.
Again;
Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the
several colonies may unanimously agree?
And
If he joins a plea of ultra vires with a plea of conflict of law, that ought to be heard.
This, I successfully argued in my successful appeals on 19 July 2006 also, and this was
UNCHALLENGED by the Federal Government.
The Australian Act 1986 clearly is not valid merely because the state may have agreed to it, as
Barton made clear that even if the Commonwealth of Australia was to agree with the states it still
would require a Referendum to approve of it. After all, consider a 10 billion dollar expenditure to
some State to be carried by other States also. Constitutionally, the Commonwealth of Australia
could not use 10 billion dollars from Consolidated Revenue but would have to put a special levy
against the participating States to raise the 10 billion dollars.
What we have seen however is that we have this COAG (Council of Australian Government)
now making deals with the Federal Government to hand over legislative powers disregarding
entirely constitutional limitations. The Territories are in fact owned by the States and as such
subservient to the States through the Commonwealth of Australia and then it is nonsense to hold
that the Territories somehow can be an equal partner. More over, the 1976 High Court of
Australia decision as to the voting right of Senators of territories was also ill conceived, as the
Delegates made clear during the Debates that Senators would be allowed to represent their
constituents but would not be entitled to vote as the Senate was a State House.
What the electors of the Colonies were seeking to achieve is to combine their legislative powers
for so far required for a federation but no more. For example, the issue was to provide postal
service that all Australians would pay the same charge for postal service and also with telephone
charges, we have seen however that the Commonwealth of Australia has Australian Post and
Telecom (Telstra) charging variable rates undermining the very intention of the Framers of the
Constitution. Indeed, they made clear the didn’t desire to have the same problems as the USA to
have telephone companies in private hands and for this had this made a Commonwealth of
Australia entity. Nothing in the Constitution actually permits the Sale of Telstra and as Section 69
does not provide for “until the parliament otherwise provides” it is unconstitutional to sell of
Telstra.
While the British Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
(UK) it was a, so to say, trade off with the people of Australia. It was to give the Australians a
certain independence of limited self-government without it all together separating from the British
empire. The Constitution guaranteed for example within Subsection 51(xix) that aliens would be
naturalized to become British nationals.
Nothing in the Constitution did in any way authorize the Commonwealth of Australia to
declare/define the nationality of any person born within the Commonwealth of Australia and
neither did the Colonies (now States) have such a power as it was under British law that a person
born in the realm of the King has the nationality of the King.
It means that any child born (other then that of diplomats of foreign nations) if natural born in the
Commonwealth of Australia are and remain to be British nationals.
It was made clear that only Section 128 of the Constitution could be used to amend the
Constitution and any other way would be ULTRA VIRES.
What also ought to be clear is that the Colonies (now States) lost their sovereign rights to amend
their own constitutions at will but required from then on a referendum form their elector to do so,
as once the Colonies had adapted that the electors had to approve the handing over of powers for
federation to the Political Union then it was bound to continue this.
Again;
No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing
its constitution at its own will.
While NSW seemed to have amended its constitution and so Victoria and other States since
federation unless this was by referendum of the electors of that State those amendments to their
constitutions are not worth the paper it is written upon.

One of the other problems is the use and interpretation of Subsection 51(xxxvii) and (xxxviii).
The Delegates at length debates those provisions and made clear it could not be used to expand
the constitution. For example, while much is argued about the Australian Act 1986 (Cth) it is not
a “matter” that fell within either subsection 51(xxvii) or (xxxviii) and as such is and remains to be
unconstitutional.
While the British Parliament has the inhered right to amend its own legislation and/or altogether
eliminate provisions, it can however not deny existing rights as existed prior to this.
And this is where one need to have an extensive knowledge of what the Constitution stands for.
How many lawyers would have known that Section 51(xxvi) legislation AUTOMATICALLY
robs every person of the race against which legislation is enacted their citizenship (being political
rights) and so their franchise?
And I can go on and on.
It is embedded in the Constitution that anyone born in the Commonwealth of Australia is a

subject of the British Crown. It is therefore beyond the legislative powers of the British
Parliament to in anyway enact any legislation that would deny this right as it is part of the
Constitution and Section 128 referendum neither can get around this. The very reason being that
a Section 128 referendum cannot deal with prerogative powers as the Delegates made clear.
Therefore, the legislative powers that the British parliament was left with was to legislate
anything but what would conflict with the Constitution, including the unwritten part of the
Constitution, as they had been aware of all debates and accepted the tenure of it when enacting
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
Again we have to consider;

QUOTE
citizen.
END QUOTE
If the British were able to legislate that Singaporean would in effect have the same rights as other
citizens of the British Commonwealth then it clearly legislated it to be applicable to the
Commonwealth of Australia also.
There appear to be no conflict to this part in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia

Constitution Act 1900 (UK), this as the Framers of the constitution made clear that any British
subject was entitled to enter the Commonwealth of Australia unless they were under a disability.
Again, because of India being then under British rule and the Framers of the Constitution wanted
to avoid being flooded by Indians, they devised Subsection 51(xxvi) as an alternative to prevent
“coloured races” to come into the country if needed. However, they made clear that British law
would override Commonwealth of Australia law in regard of treaties, and as such it is embedded
in the Constitution that British law remain to be applicable as they were at the time of Federation,
unless the laws were in total repealed.
It also means that the Westminster Act was worthless for so far it attempted to give the
Commonwealth of Australia powers that was to interfere with the constitutional powers existing.
Any 1939 purported acceptance of the Westminster Act by the Commonwealth of Australia

therefore was worthless where it sought to retrospectively validate previous legislation as the
Delegates made clear they opposed retrospective legislation.
With Singapore there was a handing over of legislative powers from the British Parliament to
Singapore and the constitution does clearly show this. With the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) such intention was never existing, to the contrary the Delegates made
it very clear it was not desired and opposed any move to do so. Therefore, if any legislation by the
British Parliament, subsequently to the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900 (UK) (as known after Royal Assent was given) is to in anyway diminish the written and
unwritten provisions of the Constitution then it would be ULTRA VIRES for so far this was in
such subsequent legislation.
All properties for example are owned by the Crown. They cannot change to become property
of the Commonwealth of Australia as it is only a sovereign for so far it exercise sovereign powers
in the name of the British Crown governing legislative powers granted by the Constitution.
As a matter of fact while Western Australia and some other states may have abolished the usage
of the Crown in their legislation they real danger they are facing is that all and any charges levied
against any offender may be constitutionally NULL AND VOID, as under the Constitution one
can only be charged in the name of the Crown.
Remarkable, on the one hand the High Court of Australia in the Kable decision seeks to dictate
(albeit wrongly) that the State judiciary is bound by the Federal Constitution, albeit this never
was intended, on the other hand where the Crown is part of the Federal Constitution then the
High Court of Australia seems not to follow this reasoning.
There is another significant difference between Australian legal powers and that of the British.
For example, in the UK the British Government can use the, so called, Henry VIII powers to
amend legislation the Australian Parliament has no such powers, albeit somehow the High Court
of Australia seeks to apply this with exercising of islands from the migration zone.
A Minister of the Crown in the UK has unlimited powers within his/her portfolio where as a
Minister of the Crown in the Australian Government is limited to act for the peace, order and
good government as the Framers of the Constitution made clear.
The British Parliament can enact legislation for any part specifically or in total of the empire. The
Commonwealth of Australia can only legislate enactment for the whole of the Commonwealth of
Australia and cannot exclude any part of it. Hence the so-called exercising of Islands from the
migration zone is a sheer and utter nonsense.
The British Parliament has all powers as to deal with a persons liberty, property, religion and
political rights. The Commonwealth of Australia has very limited powers as to political matters
but further has no legislative powers to detain/deport anyone, not even refugees without a
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION by a State Court. Hence, a Minister of Immigration seek to
detain/deport a person first requires a State Court order by a JUDICIAL DECISION to be able to
enforce her decision.
Any alleged powers to transfer legislative powers of the British parliament to the Commonwealth
of Australia, being it the Westminster Act, the Australian Act 1986(UK) or otherwise therefore
would be floored and have no constitutional or other legal worth as it was made clear;
Therefore it would be contrary to the Constitution and be an attempt to amend the Constitution
outside Section 128 by default. It would mean to amend the right of natural born Australians to be
robbed of their British nationality. It would mean a right to reside in the Commonwealth of
Australia to be subjected to the political whims of a government and children born to refugees put

in horrendous consequences being deported STATELESS and unconstitutionally robbed of their
British nationality and Australian political rights by their State and Australian citizenship
While the High Court of Australia again ill conceived, in its 1943 judgment held that in time of
war the Commonwealth of Australia could suspend civil rights, the truth is that the
Commonwealth has no constitutional powers as to civil rights and therefore neither can suspend
this.
The first issue to attend it will be the fact that Australian troops were authorised by Mr. John
Howard to participate as part of the Coalition of the willing to invade the sovereign nation Iraq.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1847070.htm
JOHN HOWARD:
but my job is to try and call what I think are the consequences of certain actions against Australia's
national interest.
And
JOHN HOWARD: Kerry I do know this, that if we are out in a year's time it will be in circumstances of
defeat. When I say we, I mean all the coalition forces and obviously if the Americans go, then other
forces will go as well. Now that would be circumstances of defeat and I know that the consequences of that
for the West, its prestige, American prestige and influence in the Middle East, to spur that would give the
terrorism in the Middle East, the implications it would have for the stability of other countries in the Middle
East and also in our part of the world, the spur to terrorism, I think the consequences of that for Australia
would be very great indeed and that is why I know in the face of a lot of criticism and a lot of dissent in this
country and I respect that fact, that is why I feel so very strongly about this issue and I owe the Australian
people, as Prime Minister, the obligation of telling them where I stand and the reasons for it and what
my deep belief is
And
JOHN HOWARD:
I mean, if you go on – what I’m saying what you said is correct, that is true, it is a bleak assessment but
it also warns if there is a precipitate withdrawal, the likelihood of a full scale plunge into civil war is
immediate and that the consequences in the region would be of the instability that I've spoken of.
And
JOHN HOWARD: Well I don't accept they are the only two choices. I am more optimistic about the prospects
of ultimately stabilising the situation in Iraq than that. Now what you're basically putting to me is, well, there's
no hope. America is inevitably defeated in Iraq so they might as well get it over and done with and get
out now. Well, I don't believe that because I think the consequences for Australia of such a defeat and
humiliation of the United States in Iraq are enormous.
And
KERRY O’BRIEN: The American invasion of Iraq was supposed to be a blow against terrorism but
didn't that invasion, with your help and your agre ement, actually open Iraq's doors to Al Qaeda and
other Islamic extremists? Hasn't it become the honey pot for the flies? And the bees?
JOHN HOWARD: Well there are a number of reasons for the invasion of Iraq. One of those reasons was
because there was a widely-held view that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now, people say
evidence suggests that that's not the case and I acknowledge that, but that was a widely held view.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But do you also accept the fundamental premise, Mr Howard, for whatever reasons
you went in, isn't it true that by going in you have opened the door to terrorists as a recruiting ground if
you like, for terrorists in Iraq?
JOHN HOWARD: Well certainly the terrorists regard the battle that's going on in Iraq as very
important to the future of their cause. Of course they do, and that's one of the reasons why it's not in
our interests that America and the coalition be defeated.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1846174.htm
BRENDAN NELSON: Well, in fact what the Prime Minister is saying, that if Senator Obama or anybody else
for that matter were to unilaterally and prematurely withdraw American and coalition forces from Iraq before
the Iraqis can look after their own affairs, you are of course handing victory to the terrorists and our Prime

Minister, quite rightly, is standing up on behalf of Australia and those countries who believe it is absolutely
essential that America not face defeat in Iraq to say that under no circumstances should that be acceptable.
And
BRENDAN NELSON: There is most certainly a coincidence of interest, if you want to call it Tony, between
the United States, Britain, Australia and almost 30 other countries that democratically elected the Iraqi
Government, the United Nations which endorses our involvement and participation in Iraq.
And
BRENDAN NELSON: Well certainly those people, whether they be in the United States, United
Kingdom, Australia or in any other part of the world, people who are arguing that we withdraw from
Iraq, to abandon the Iraqi people, to ignore the requests of the democratically elected Iraqi
Government - those who argue that we should do that before the Iraqi security forces are in a position
to essentially look after their own security, we will by definition hand victory to those al Qaeda and
other terrorist networks who see it as important.
Again;
Well certainly those people, whether they be in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia or in any
other part of the world, people who are arguing that we withdraw from Iraq, to abandon the Iraqi
people, to ignore the requests of the democratically elected Iraqi Government - those who argue that we
should do that before the Iraqi security forces are in a position to essentially look after their own
security, we will by definition hand victory to those al Qaeda and other terrorist networks who see it as
important.
What we have is an admission that a defeat in Iraq would have severe consequences against the
national interest of Australia.
Again;
I think the consequences of that for Australia would be very great indeed
Lets now go back to the cause of federation.

Constitutionally, to declare WAR or PEACE is a PREROGATIVE power that only the
Governor-General can exercise on behalf of the Crown.
In fact, the Delegates at the convention made clear that where the Minister of Defence advised the
Governor-General as to DECLARE WAR then the Governor-General having received this advise
was to consider if it would be in the interest of the GENERAL COMMUNITY to issue such a
DECLARATION OF WAR or to refuse to do so.
The Governor-General at the time being Mr. Peter Hollingworth did NOT have published in the
Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR, and as the publication in the Gazette was made clear by
the Framers of the Constitution to be a pre-requisite before the Minister of Defence could be
authorised to deploy troops to invade another sovereign nation then without such
DECLARATION OF WAR having been published in the Gazette the Minister of Defence
therefore had no lawful authorisation to deploy troops to invade the sovereign nation Iraq.
Prior to Federation, while the States were still referred to as Colonies, the Delegates referred to
the Prime Minister of a Colony. In that regard, the term Prime Minister in effect is the same as
being a Premier. There is no constitutional prohibition for any Premier to continue to use the title
Prime Minister. The WRITTEN Constitution itself is silent as to a reference to Prime Minister
however as a Grandmaster “constitutionalist” I have to admit that the Delegates did make known
on the last day of the conventions;
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
However the following also was stated;

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.
themselves.
Again;
As such, only the people of Australia through a referendum can amend the Constitution. Not
some Court or politicians.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes. The Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army. She has the sole
power of making peace and war. According to constitutional assumption it is her army. But who
exercises the control of the Imperial Army? Is it not the adviser of the Queen? Would there not, as I
said before, be a revolution if the Queen exercised her powers without consulting her Ministers?
And
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 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 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 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?
Therefore, it must be clear that the “responsible Minister” being the Minister of Defence is the
only appropriate person to advise the Governor-General as after all he is the “responsible
Minister” who is commissioned to be the Minister for the Department of Defence.
While the Delegates did at times indicate that there would be a Prime Minister, and as such the
unwritten Constitution does include the appointment of a Prime Minister, it does however not
take away the constitutional condition that only the Minister of Defence can advise the Governor-
General as to if the Governor-General ought to issue a DECLARATION OF WAR or not.
Mr. BARTON.-
But the Minister is responsible for the administration of the department as the person under whose
control it is, within the Executive arrangement, and he is responsible for all expenditure upon it. Having
this responsibility, he is entitled to tender the advice which will enable him to exercise his responsibility
fearlessly.

As such, unless the Prime Minister happens to be at the time the Minister of Defence, the Prime
Minister does not service in dealing with the issue of if there should or should not be a request to
the Governor-General for a DECLARATION OF WAR to be issued.
In the case with the armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq, either the Minister of Defence
did not give any advise to the Governor-General, considering,
“if a responsible Minister chooses to advise”
or the Minister of Defence simply did give the advise but the Governor-General at the time
deemed it was against the national interest of the general community to authorise an armed
invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq. Either way, the end result was that the Minister of
Defence had no lawful authority to deploy Australian troops and certainly not invade the
sovereign nation Iraq. Indeed, any armed invasion would be in breach of Section 24AA of the
Crimes Act (Cth) as Iraq was at the time a “friendly” nation.
It also must be understood that the Federal Parliament neither could authorise an armed
invasion, even if it had purportedly done so, albeit the Senate opposed this in any event.
As for the United Nations, it had no constitutional position to override the prerogative powers of
the Governor-General or any other constitutional power or limitation, and even if the UN
somehow had authorised an armed invasion into Iraq, which I understand it never did in any
event, it still would not have made it constitutionally valid for the Minister of Defence to allow
Australian troops to invade the sovereign nation Iraq.
Sir J. G. LEE STEERE.-
. What is the use of our agreeing to have a federal defence force if there is to be no head? Suppose a war broke
out and we wanted to concentrate all the colonial troops in one place, who is to give the orders? The Prime
Minister of one colony would not allow the Prime Minister of another colony to give such orders. We must
have a general appointed by the Imperial Government to take command of the troops, and we must have an
Executive Government on whose orders that general would act, otherwise we cannot have federal defence.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I should have preferred, Mr. President, that my hon. friend beside me, the Hon.
James Munro, Prime Minister of the great colony of Victoria, should have followed you in the debate on the
resolutions that you have submitted to us.
The PRESIDENT:
By some oversight when the delegates were elected by Parliament, there was, I believe, no member of the
government elected beside the Prime Minister, Mr. Munro, and unless Mr. Shiels be allowed the privilege of
remaining upon the understanding that he will not take part in the voting, the Prime Minister of Victoria will
be left without a colleague in his government
Mr. GILLIES:
How could it possibly live unless the prime minister obtained a dissolution from the governor-general?
In this context it refers to the Governor-General and as such it refers to the Prime Minister of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
Mr. CLARK:
When we know that he has the power of nominating every member of the senate, and every lieutenant-
governor, and of appointing superior and inferior judges and justices of the peace, as well as the power of
vetoing all local legislation, his long term of office is easily accounted for. With such reins in his hands he
might be expected to remain in the saddle an indefinite time. We do not want to place it in the power of the
prime minister of our dominion to exercise patronage to that extent. What we want is a separate federal
judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under their own governments.
And
Mr. CLARK:
My friend, Mr. Wrixon, said something about the desirableness of a uniform criminal law, and while he was
speaking I expressed the opinion that we should not have a uniform criminal law. The hon. member
invited me, I understood, to give some reasons why we should not have it. I have placed my note upon
criminal law under the head of state interests, because I believe it comes under that head. It might be desirable
in some colonies or in some states, to make certain things crimes which it would not be desirable to make
crimes in other states. We know that in the American union the eastern states are highly civilised, refined
communities, advanced in physical, intellectual, and artistic culture; while, on the other hand, the western
states, or the backwoods, as they are called, are in a very different position, politically, socially, and
intellectually. It might be necessary in some of the states to pass stringent laws making certain things crimes
which would not be so dealt with in other states. Besides, we know that the law is often used as a means of
effecting indirectly some ulterior purpose, also for the purposes of class or special interests. The game laws of
England occupied in former years, and occupy now to a certain extent, a foremost place in the provisions of
British criminal legislation. We know what detestable and abominable laws they were, and we know that they
were introduced not for the protection of life and property and individual liberty in the ordinary sense-not for
the same purpose as that for which you make murder or forgery a crime-but for the conservation of certain
class interests and class privileges. In America, in the days of slavery, it was made a capital felony in some
states to teach a negro to read or write; and even at the present day, when slavery has been long abolished, the
marriage of black people with white people in some states is made criminal. Men who have chosen to marry a
mulatto or a quadroon have stood in the criminal's box and have been sentenced as common criminals. Now,
there was a time when the slave power was so strong in America that it appeared to be about to transform the
whole union into its own hideous form and likeness, and, if the attempt had succeeded, it would have been
[start page 253] a most lamentable state of things to have the laws which would have been then enacted in
force throughout the whole of the Union-in Massachusetts, in the home of the pilgrims, as well as in
Louisiana. We do not want to run that risk. Do not let us, therefore, have a uniform criminal law, but let
each state have its own law.
KABLE v.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR NEW SOUTH WALES FC 96/027
Commonwealth Constitution [1996] HCA 24 (12 September 1996)
These are the sections which continue to sustain the Constitutions of the States and confirm their respective
powers, including the power to amend their own Constitutions (13).
And
3. Does Ch III of the preclude the vesting of jurisdiction under in the Supreme Court of New South Wales?
13. Chapter III of of the Commonwealth both limits the repositories of the judicial power of the
Commonwealth and, in context, prescribes a separation of the function of the High Court and of other federal
courts from the functions of the political branches of government. The separation of functions is derived from
the structure of and, in particular, from the distribution of legislative power to the Federal Parliament (s 1), of
executive power to the Queen for exercise by the Governor-General (s 61) and of judicial power to the courts
referred to in
14. In like manner, no functions that are not judicial can be conferred by the Commonwealth Parliament on a
State court (17), and thus the separation of State courts from the Legislative and the Executive branches of the
Commonwealth Government is secured. But that separation does not purport to effect a separation of the
courts of a State or Territory from the Legislature or Executive of the State or Territory. Nor does purport to
preclude State Parliaments from conferring a non-judicial power on a State court. It would be surprising if it
did. Such a provision would have destroyed the State laws investing mining warden's courts, licensing courts
and planning courts – to take only some instances - with extensive administrative powers.
15. However, it is submitted that, as and (iii) authorise the investing of the judicial power of the
Commonwealth in State courts, those courts must be capable of accepting and exercising the federal
jurisdiction invested in them and that that capacity is dependent on their not being repositories of non-judicial
power the exercise of which is incompatible with the exercise of federal judicial power. It has been accepted
constitutional doctrine that, when the Commonwealth invests the judicial power of the Commonwealth in a
State court, it must take that court constituted and organised as it is from time to time (18).
Again;
Mr. CLARK:
What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under their own
governments.
It was never intended by the Framers of the Constitution that State Courts would act as the
Commonwealth Courts as in fact the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the state would
have their Courts operating as was permitted under State laws!
What we had is that the High Court of Australia has judges appointed who lack any competence
in certain constitutional issues. This contributing to the fact that on 18 March 2003 I lodged, as
per directions of format by the Registrar of the registry, Section 75(v) applications for
Mandamus/Prohibition against the Commonwealth of Australia to deploy Australian troops as to
unconstitutionally invade the sovereign nation Iraq.
On 19 March 2003, the day the armed murderous invasion commenced, the High Court of
Australia handed down a judgment refusing to allow the matter to proceed. Again, the application
had been filed in the format as was directed by the Registrar as to be the appropriate format where
the Registrar on 11 March 2003 refused to accept the application for lodgement citing difficulties
in format and directed certain changes to be made to the format she dictated.
The High Court of Australia somehow argued that the formal of the application was incorrect,
this, even so it was prepared to the strict directions of the Registrar. To me it was the High Court
of Australia conduct to railroad my case as it proved to do previously and subsequently also.
More over, the very issues canvassed then in the applications were repeated during the appeal on
19 July 2006 and the appeals succeeded with not even a single constitutional issue having been
challenged by the Federal Government lawyers, and as such it rather appeared that the High Court
of Australia judges, having had an highly inappropriate meeting with the Governor-General (then
the First Defendant in the case pending before the High Court of Australia) without the
knowledge of me such meeting to take place, somehow misused/abused their powers to railroad
my cases.
This correspondence would be taking reams of paperwork to set all relevant issues out, but as this
is not the core issue, I can refer to the 6-7-2006 published book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1
This book was subsequently filed as evidence for the 19 July 2006 appeals.
There appears to be a gross misconception as the Commonwealth powers and state legal
jurisdiction which the aforementioned book did set out in great details. In my view the Kable
decision was a constitutional rubbish, as was the Sykes v Cleary, the Sue v Hill, the 1982, Pochi
the Tasmanian Dam and numerous other cases. Hence, I have for long pursued that every
Government has 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.
Again;
Kable;
These are the sections which continue to sustain the Constitutions of the States and confirm their respective
powers, including the power to amend their own Constitutions (13).
A constitutional nonsense as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;

QUOTE 27-11-2006 CORRESPONDENCE
HANSARD 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD)
Dr. COCKBURN:
Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary
sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative,
but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their
constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under
a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own
will.
Again;
No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its
constitution at its own will.
QUOTE 27-11-2006 CORRESPONDENCE
The Australian Citizenship Act 1948, as I successfully argued in Court, the “Commonwealth of
Australia” is a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION, as like the European Union, and it has no
constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates(Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention);
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-
But we are at present creating a dual citizenship-retaining the rights of citizenship which the inhabitants
already possess, and, in addition, conferring what I think most people will be even more proud of, the
citizenship of the Commonwealth of Australia.
And
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-
We know pretty clearly what constitutes a citizen of Great Britain. We know what constitutes a citizen of our
various states. But we are at present creating a dual citizenship-retaining the rights of citizenship which the
inhabitants already possess, and, in addition, conferring what I think most people will be even more proud of,
the citizenship of the Commonwealth of Australia.
And
Mr. SYMON.-
Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There
may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
And
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I understood that, under the Federal Constitution we are creating, we would have a
dual citizenship, not only a citizenship of the states, but also a citizenship of the higher political
organization-that of the Commonwealth. It seems now, from what the Hon. Mr. Barton has said, that we are
not to have that dual citizenship; we are to have only a citizenship of the states.
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.
And
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
joining the Union.
Question-That the proposed new sub-section (31A) be inserted-put.
The committee divided-
Ayes ... ... ... 15
Noes ... ... ... 21
Majority against Dr. Quick's
Australasian Convention);
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.
Again;
I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
With the unconstitutional Racial Discrimination Act 1975 being against the GENERAL
COMMUNITY while Subsection 51(xxvi) only permits a race legislation against a specific
“coloured race”, we have also that by this every person subject to this Racial Discrimination Act
1975 is constitutionally no longer a “citizen”, this as the Framers of the Constitution embedded
this in the Constitution.
Also, as I presented to the Court, computer records obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act proved that the proclamation of the Governor-General for the prorogue of the Parliament and
the dissolution of the House of Representatives was not at all published in the Gazette on 8
October 2001 but was still at the printers on 9 October 2001, and in fact some delivery dockets
were printed on 10 October 2001. Hence, all writs for the House of Representatives were
unconstitutional and null and void. Likewise all writs for the Senate were issued in conflict of
constitutional requirement, listing the wrong time table and for this also were defective and of no
legal force.
Now, without having to go into every detail it seems to me that neither John Howard or others
were elected in 2001, as I proved in Court that there was never any valid federal election held.
The Federal Government lawyers rather then to accept my alternative date of holding an election
on 15 December 20-01 instead so that replacement (valid) writs could be issues according to the
relevant timetables applicable, as all writs issued by the Governor-General also were all in breach
of the legal requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, then pursued to have my
case on 7 November 2001 railroaded. However,…… again….however, what they never realised
is that once I made a constitutional based objection the writs for all purposes were and remained
to be ULTRA VIRES unless and until the High Court of Australia declared them to be INTRA
VIRES. This the High Court of Australia never did. This, even so on 4 December 2002, upon a
submission of the Federal Government lawyers (Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg, having sought and obtained my consent, ordered
that the constitutional issues raised by me first had to be determined by the High Court of
Australia and for this adjourned matters then pending.
Hansard 1-3-1898
[start page 1683]
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.
And
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. 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 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.
I could fill reams of paper about this but my 30 September 2003 published book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
Sets out matters far more extensively.
Remarkably, 4 copies of the book were personally handed in to the High Court of Australia on the
day of publication, at which day Robertson J of the County Court of Victoria about the
publication of this book is on record to have stated;
“The pen is mightier then the sword.”.
subsequently a few days later another 4 copies were delivered personally by me to the High Court
of Australia.
This book also extensively dealt with the case of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge, whom both
at the time were imprisoned. In my book I did set out why the convictions were legally wrong.
The Queensland Attorney-General responded that the issues I had raised had not been canvassed
by either party before any of the Courts. Subsequently, I provided copies and extracts to Pauline
Hanson’s sister Judy Smith urging her to place it before the Queensland Criminal Court of
Appeal, and it is a matter of records that the Criminal Court of Appeal about word for word stated
the very legal grounds I had raised in my book as to overturn the convictions.
Gee, do I love the Constitution and the Hansard records of the Constitutional Convention
Debates, better reading then any other book.
Take for example the issue of Mr. David Hicks in US prison detention;
Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would
probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada
has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the
Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only
act for and on behalf of its citizens.
Therefore the Federal Government has a DUTY OF CARE to secure the release of Mr. David
Hicks. Mr. David Hicks right of a FAIR AND PROPER TRIAL should have been the same as
any American. But there is another twist to this. Because the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit
unconstitutionally, joined the so called COALITION OF THE WILLING then Mr. David Hicks
was as much a prisoner of the Commonwealth of Australia as that of the USA, in deed so was the
late president Saddam Hussein.
Meaning, that both had a legal right to have the protection of the Federal government and as such
the late President Saddam Hussein as not to be executed, in view that the European Union Human
rights Act does in fact apply also the Commonwealth of Australia, just that politicians and
lawyers don’t comprehend this.
As for Mr. David Hicks, the treaty between Cuba and the USA does not allow the holding of
prisoners not involved with coaling or the navy station! Further, the 1688 Bill of Rights, 1640
Habeas Corpus also does not permit the transport of prisoners over the seas, and require the
release of prisoners at the end of hostilities of the war itself. As such I can foresee that the Person
purporting to be the prime minister, the person purporting to be the Minister of Defence and
others in Government may just get sued in time to come. After all while the Migration Act allows
the Minister to determine to detain/deport a person, constitutionally it has no legal force unless
and until a State Court with a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION formally orders this.
As such the navy being involved in towing unseaworthy boats into international waters also can
be a crime on the high seas.
Yes, there is a lot more, as my case before the Court pointed out, and no wonder I succeeded in
the appeals of the convictions of FAILING TO VOTE, as there was never any valid federal
election in 2001 and/or 2004. Hence, we had no Prime Minister at all and neither any Minister of
Defence to advice the Governor-General to authorise to go to war.
See also my 2003 publication;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & There is no Government to go to war

A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia
ISBN 978-0-9580569-5-3 was ISBN 0-9580569-5-1
And my 2002 published book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA

Dictatorship & deaths by stealth- Preliminary book edition on CD
ISBN 978-0-9580569-3-9 was ISBN 0-9580569-3-5
We therefore have numerous issues;
Was there any validly appointed Prime Minister at the time of invading Iraq?
Did the Prime Minister have the prerogative powers to declare war?
Did the person Mr. John Howard impersonate to be a Prime Minister?
Did the person Mr. John Howard breach Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) as to authorise an
armed attack upon the sovereign nation Afghanistan and/or the sovereign nation Iraq?
Did the purported Prime Minister Mr. John Howard have any constitutional position to authorise
any armed invasion into either or both Afghanistan and/or Iraq?
Was Mr. John Howard validly elected as a candidate in the purported 10 November 2001 federal
election and/or the subsequent 2004 purported federal election?
If it was deemed, for argument purpose, that Mr. John Howard was/is the Prime Minister then did
he fail to secure the rights of the late President Saddam Hussein not to be executed or be handed
over for execution when being held by the Coalition of the Willing, having been a military
occupant of Iraq, as the late President Saddam Hussein was entitled to the benefits of Australian
law and so also that the Australian community opposes capital punishment?
Did Mr. John Howard fail his duty of care towards DAVID HICKS, and for this also the
(purported) Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer and the relevant (purported) Minister
of Defence?
Could it be held that the detention/deportation of any person by the Commonwealth of Australia
without having first obtained a JUDICIAL DECISION from a State Court was unconstitutional?
Could it be held that the unconstitutional/illegal conduct of Mr. John Howard and the subsequent
death and destruction in Iraq constitute mass murder and crimes against humanity?
Could it be held that any other member of parliament who supported and/or otherwise
participated in this could be held as an accomplish to any of the unconstitutional/illegal conduct
by Mr. John Howard?
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, 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.
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.
Now, it seems to me that while John Howard and others may be beating the drum, so to say, about
Australian’s national interest, it would be better that the above matters and numerous others
canvassed in my various books are first appropriately evaluated so that in the first place the
general community can have an understanding if Mr. John Howard, or all those others claiming to
pursue that waging an armed invasion into another sovereign country somehow is within the
provisions of Section 51 of the Constitution
“for the peace, order, and good Government of the Commonwealth”
and therefore is in the national interest.
You may notice that it states;
“for the peace, order, and good Government of the Commonwealth”
It does not state at all;

“for the peace, order, and good Government of the Commonwealth, Afghanistan and Iraq”
And, as the constitutional powers of the Governor-General as the chief Executor (also known as
the Administrator) of the Commonwealth of Australia is limited to the limits of the
Commonwealth of Australia and not beyond, then any of his servants (Minister of the Crown)
neither can execute powers.
In fact, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear, the moment the Governor-General leaves
the Commonwealth of Australia he shall appoint another person who shall act instead in the
function as Governor-General and shall be paid for out of the pay by the Governor-General
himself. Meaning, Governor Green should have been paid by Governor-General Hollingworth.
And constitutionally a Governor-General is employed in the service of the Monarch and be paid
by the Monarch, and cannot be paid out of Consolidated Revenue for some kind of retirement
fund as it is up to the Monarch to redeploy the Governor-General elsewhere or simply give him
the flick!
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA BILL.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I beg to move-
That this Convention cordially invites the Prime Minister of each colony here represented to provide for the
supply of copies of the Draft of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill, as now finally adopted by
this Convention, to the electors of his colony.
This motion will, I hope, give the members of the Convention an opportunity to state from their places
in this chamber to the electors who sent them here their opinion of the Draft Bill and its provisions. I
think that on this, the last day of our meeting, it is only fit that some opportunity should be given to
honorable members so to express their opinions that the statement of them in an authoritative form, as
printed in the official report of the debates, may reach those whose verdict upon the Bill is so soon to be
sought.
It is clear that this was meaning that the electors could check the official reports of the debates
before called upon to vote for the Constitution Convention Bill.
The purported Royal Assent given by the Queen of Australia is worthless as the constitution never
provided for a purported Queen of Australia as that is clear from the Hansard records of the
Debates. Neither can any Governor-General be deemed validly appointed unless he was appointed
by the Queen upon recommendation of the Home Office, as the Governor-General can not be
appointed upon the recommendation of the Australian Government, as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear.
Judges who may seek to enforce the unconstitutional Australia Act 1986 or other unconstitutional
legislation could face to commit TREASON as the judges are bound to hand down decision for
the general community and not for the sake of some political agenda such as a Government of the
Day.
Again;
Mr. HIGGINS.-
I think an alteration with regard to the rest of the Constitution, what I may call the machinery part,
ought to be much easier than the forms for altering the Constitution with regard to the powers
conferred by the states on the Federal Commonwealth. If a number of the states come together and say-
"We are willing to surrender certain powers to the Central Government,
Mr. GLYNN.-
We ought not to create the evil of making the Judges not merely interpreters, but the extenders of the
Constitution, and we ought to give the Constitution such a degree of elasticity as will render it capable of
being moulded to the changed conditions as time goes on, and prevent the dangerous alternative of judicial
expansion.
And
Mr. ISAACS.-How could it?
Mr. HIGGINS.-It could not. The dead-lock clauses only apply to laws passed by the Parliament.
Mr. DOBSON.-But some honorable members argue that they would apply to a proposal to amend the
Constitution.

Therefore judges do not have any constitutional powers to apply “contemporary views” as
somehow amend the Constitution and are bound to act within the spirit of the intentions of the
Framers of the Constitution.
Sure, I understand from Kirby J comments that he desires to use Section 26(xxvi) somehow as to
portray that minority groups are a race but had he appropriately researched the Hansard records
then he should have known this related to “coloured races” not as to homosexuals or other groups
to be deemed minority groups as a race. Neither is the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 valid as it
is not a specific legislation regarding a coloured race, but against the “general community” which
was specifically stated could not be done. However, anyone who argues that this legislation
nevertheless somehow was to be valid ought to keep in mind if this legislation were to be valid it
would mean that every person subject to the Racial Discrimination Act would by this
AUTOMATICALLY have lost their citizenship, so their franchise and to sit in the Federal
Parliament.
Then from 1975 no one was qualified to be an elector and so sit in the Parliament and all laws
enacted since are then NULL AND VOID, including the Australian Act 1986 (Cth).
What this all brings out, and considering John Howards conduct to unconstitutionally go to war
against a “friendly” sovereign nation such as Iraq, is that the moment you tamper with the
Constitution then you are asking for problems. No one in his right mind would pursue to
circumvent the right of the people as they after all own the constitution. Hence, while the British
Parliament made the enactment it accepted that it is the “NEW MAGNA CARTA” ;
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.
As I did extensively oppose the constitutional validity of the Australian Act, the Westminster Act
and others, then they all remain ULTRA VIRES and as such the only valid Constitution we have
is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK).
As I understand it the Queen in her coronation pledge promised to adhere to the laws of the
Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK) is
a law that binds the Queen and so anyone else.
If the British Parliament implied or otherwise repealed the Commonwealth of Australia

Constitution Act 1900(UK) act, then it might be deemed to have been invalid. And, even if it
were purportedly having done so it would not have had any powers then to set up a different
framework of Government as then the people of Australia would have had to do so. The British
Parliament cannot have it that its laws do not apply and yet seek to enact an Australian Act 1986
(UK) as a new Constitution undermining the rights of Australians, such as their rights to British
nationality, the Constitution being above the Parliament, etc.
There is an obvious lesson to be learned from this all, and that is that politicians of all colour will
be power hungry and will seek to swindle the very constituents they are to represent for their own
personal power gains, being precisely what the Framers of the Constitution wanted to prevent!

The brief look upon the Singaporean Constitution indicates that the handing over of power was
done in a proper manner, not some backdoor manner.
If politicians had any honest intention then they could have approached the electors, but it must be
clear they tried to swindle the electorate and in the process have gone of the rails, so to say.
While the Framers of the Constitution did indicate that the High Court of Australia would be the
GUARDIAN of the Constitution, we found that soon after Federation the High Court of
Australia went against this by banning the use of the Hansard records of the Constitution
Convention Debates despite that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the High Court
of Australia was to interpret the meaning of the written Constitution by what they had stated to be
their intentions. So until about 1992 lawyers/judges and others were basically brainwashed at
mass to believe some LEGAL FICTION and now the truth is coming out.
I did successfully on constitutional grounds oppose the validity of the 10 November 2001 and the
9 October 2004 federal elections and in this regard those purportedly elected never were either.
I opposed the validity of the 10 November 2001 purported federal election before the purported
election was held but the Federal Government rather then to accept all writs were defective
pursued to use its lawyers to push ahead with the unconstitutional election. Osama bin Laden
merely needs to walk in to the Country and there is not a single validly appointed police officer
who could arrest him. There is not a single validly appointed judge who could deal with a hearing.
There is not a single validly appointed parliamentarian who could pass legislation.
If we are talking about terrorism then I view we have ample of anti-democratic-terrorist already!
Political conventions of deceiving the general community isn’t going to get them off their
unconstitutional and so illegal conduct. Neither will smart talking lawyers who deceive the courts
and/or conceal evidence from the Courts. Because there are people like myself who darn well
fight for their constitutional rights, after all my children and grandchildren rights are going to be
denied if I do not make a stand.
I did and so in a legal manner also and non of my constitutional based objections were defeated or
even CHALLENGED. Hence, it all is and remains unconstitutional and as such the only
constitution that remains to be unchallenged is the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution
Act 1900 (UK).
It is also a legal fact that no judge can invoke legal jurisdiction if there is no jurisdiction and any
judge invoking or purportedly invoking jurisdiction maliciously using legislation he/she knows or
ought to know is ULTRA VIRES then the judge could be held personally accountable and be
sued, as a judge must at all times act within judicial powers. Unconstitutional/invalid legislation
purporting to be an Australian Act 1986 or otherwise do not give any validity to any judge
seeking to use its provisions.
The High Court of Australia has no constitutional powers to consider any Act to be a purported
Constitution as its existence depends upon the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK).
How would it be for criminals to be released because they were punished under Crown laws that
are no longer deemed applicable. After all it cannot be that somehow British law does not apply
but the sentences under those laws remain.
It might very well be the Australians some time might desire to have a Republic or other
independent status but then it must be their decision, and not it being hijacked by politicians for
their personal greed for power.
Currently every federal politician dipping his hands, so to say, in the Consolidated Revenue in an
unconstitutional manner, such as Minister of the Crown as they are constitutionally in the employ

of the British Monarch and therefore no right to receive for this any payment from the
Consolidated Revenue, might face serious charges for fraud.
My view is that politicians of all colour should simply accept they did it all wrong and that the
only valid constitution is the one in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
and before they want to do anything with that Constitution they accept that they must do so in a
honest and transparent manner towards their constituents.
The current problem is that they tried to outsmart me to ignore my numerous objections and now
might all be faced with criminal charges, then again they did built this detention center at
Christmas Island and would it not be great that the first people to use the facilities where those
who authorize the building of it. Perhaps then they might claim that it is unconstitutional to be
held there, but with the media generally banned from there they too may face what is it for
refugees to be unconstitutionally locked up without any constitutional and other legal rights they
are entitled upon. It might act as a “deterrent”, for other would be politicians, that you do not try
to rip of the constituents of their constitutional rights.
There is more a lot more but for now this might be an indication that we have but only one valid
Constitution being in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and judges
should not only recognize that but honour their oath of office to uphold this!!
The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE, beyond the Powers of the British Parliament to
interfere with.
The Commonwealth of Australia being created by this The Constitution is a PERPETUAL

LEASE., therefore has no constitutional position to somehow interfere with the very Constitution
out of which it has its existence.
See also;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6 was ISBN 0-9751760-4-3
By; Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka. Author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series.
END QUOTE The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE.

END QUOTE Chapter
The pages 127a, 127b, and 127c will show that the printer of the Gazette’s claiming to have
dispatched on 9 October 2001 the Special Gazette s421, which contained the proclamation, in fact
had some of the despatch documents printed on 10 October 2001! As such, so to say, cooking the
books as to pretend that the Special Gazette S421 was sent out when it hadn’t.
Considering then also the extensive correspondence by the Author to the lawyers of the Federal
government to get those FOI documents, and mind you while litigation was going on, it becomes
clear that the Federal Government was deliberately delaying FOI documents to be released as to
cause mote time top have passed since the purported Federal election had been held on 10
November 2001. Worse, Gummow J, one of the judges who had FRATERNIZED with the first
Defendant, the Governor-General then used the passing of time in the proceedings as some kind
of excuse. This I view is a very serious matter where a judge of the High Court of Australia seeks
to indicate that any unconstitutional/illegal matter is no longer worthy to address if some 22
months have passed. Yes, tell that to all criminals, such as paedophiles when they are put before
the courts 20 or 30 years later. What we have is a very serious problem, a Court where its judges,
as I view it, are following the directions of its political master rather then to protect the
Constitution and the proper application of it.
We have no “responsible government” where we have John Howard unconstitutionally
authorising the murderous invasion of another country and judges, and again Gummow J
involved, refusing to allow the Government to be held constitutionally and otherwise legally
accountable. And it was also Gummow J in the NED KELLY case who seemed to argue, as I
understand it, that the Governor-General is not bound to publish the PROCLAMATION in the
Gazette. (See Watson v Lee also about tyranny). What “responsible government” do we have
when secret court settlements are made hiding from the general community what a Minister
authorised to be paid out for the Vivian Alvarez Solon debacle, where this poor woman was
inhumanely and unconstitutionally disposed off to another country. We now have the
DICTATOR/TYRANT Howard dictating about nuclear power stations, etc, well I say look at the
evidence on pages 127a, 127b and 127c and it shows the computer records themselves prove no
Special Gazette s421 had left the printer on 8 October 2001 and hence all writs issued by the
Governor-General on 8 October 2001 were unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES and no valid
election was held. Meaning, John Howard was never re-elected and he and his cohorts all should
face the courts to be held accountable for their unconstitutional and illegal conduct. Despite
Section 64 No Senator can be a Minister in the Federal government, but that is another story. If
we have a “Constitution” then lets have competent judges to apply and enforce it!


Chapter 006 - p36 - The Constitution Is A PERPETUAL LEASE

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 006 - p36 - The Constitution Is A PERPETUAL LEASE

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chapter 006 The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, now lets quote Chapter, 034O (published on 17-3-2007);

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS

INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, as my email of 28-2-2007 to Mr. Zachary Douglas indicates the

Page 1 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 1

Page 2 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 2

QUOTE The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE.

Page 4 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 4

In Constantine v Guilfoyle (1915) 32 W.N. (N.S.W.) 74 per Fergusson

Woolworths v Crotty (1942) 66 CLR 603 at 618 (per Latham CJ)

Page 5 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 5

This is why it was made clear;

Page 6 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 6

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

Page 7 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 7

This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.

Page 8 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 8

And also consider;

Page 9 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 9

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

Page 11 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 11

“Citizenship” was a legislative power left to the States also.

As Barton made clear;

Also other rights were associated with “Citizenship”.

When one look at the Constitution of Singapore;

Page 12 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 12

Page 13 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 13

Page 14 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 14

Mr. GLYNN.-Not sufficient attention, at all events.

Mr. BARTON.-They were made citizens.

Page 16 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 16

QUOTE 16-3-2005 correspondence to Malcolm Turnbull

QUOTE 16-3-2005 correspondence to Malcolm Turnbull

Page 18 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 18

And I can go on and on.

It is embedded in the Constitution that anyone born in the Commonwealth of Australia is a

Again we have to consider;

There appear to be no conflict to this part in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia

Page 19 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 19

Page 20 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 20

Page 21 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 21

Lets now go back to the cause of federation.

However the following also was stated;

Page 22 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 22

Page 23 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 23

A constitutional nonsense as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;

Page 26 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 26

Question-That the proposed new sub-section (31A) be inserted-put.

The committee divided-

Ayes ... ... ... 15

Noes ... ... ... 21

Majority against Dr. Quick's

Sets out matters far more extensively.

“The pen is mightier then the sword.”.

See also my 2003 publication;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & There is no Government to go to war

And my 2002 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA

We therefore have numerous issues;

It does not state at all;

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I beg to move-

Page 32 of Chapter 006 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation Page 32

If the British Parliament implied or otherwise repealed the Commonwealth of Australia

# INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, now lets quote Chapter, 034O (published on 17-3-2007);