1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM

9-9-2015

C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:

10

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Scott Morrison Scott.Morrison.MP@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150909-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PMPress Released-Re Aboriginal-constitutional-and other issues

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is what is applicable and permissible within
the true meaning of the constitution before moral issues can be argued.
We had reportedly the spending of more than $6 million dollars on the Recognise campaign
wasting taxpayers hard earned monies where the real issues governing Australian Aboriginals
are blatantly ignored. Hence, I view it is time to deal with real issues.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I propose the following amendments to the constitution to
Aboriginal rights and recognise their historical art works, etc.
Delete s25 of the constitution
Amend ss51(xxvi) to the version that existed prior to the 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum
Insert a new section:
(iA) Australian Aboriginal historical art, and the selling, trading and ownership of
contemporary Australian Aboriginal art, intra state, interstate or otherwise.
I below will set out some matters.
Not uncommon people are wondering why on earth some person looking as a Caucasian is
claiming to be Aboriginal. The truth is there are many different races all calling themselves
Aboriginals. Likely those with white skin and copper coloured skin (mainly in Western
Australia) are descendants of the Dutch who in the 1600s assimilated with the local Aboriginal
tribes. DNA may establish this to be so. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear
Aboriginals were residing in Asia and other countries, and as such you cannot recognise
Aboriginals merely using a general term. After all it would essential mean that some
Aboriginal tribe that resides in Asia and never had been in the Commonwealth of Australia (so
the landmass Nieuw Holland (New Holland) later renamed Australia). Like Nieuw Zeeland is
now named New Zeeland. Nieuw is the Dutch word for New in the English language.
If we do desire to provide recognition to Aboriginals, that is Australian Aboriginals then we must
do so in a proper manner, not merely for political expediency to harvest votes.
I (being of Caucasian) find it insulting that non-Aboriginals as I understand it are creating the
dot art paintings and sell them overseas to unsuspected purchasers who may assume they are
aboriginal art works. In my view it would be more appropriate to recognise the art work of
Aboriginal customs then a mere non-meaning statement. We had the Apology which was
hollow in words because at the same time the unconstitutional Northern Territory Intervention
Act robbed Aboriginals of their rights.
p1
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
(i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States;

10

15

20

Insert a new subsection:

(iA) Australian Aboriginal historical art, and the selling, trading and ownership of
contemporary Australian Aboriginal art, intra state, interstate and otherwise.
As seeking and trading may not be one and the same it is essential that both are included.
One may ask why on earth this has as part of trade and commerce. Well, we do not desire to have
this as some political power to be manipulated by politicians to harvest votes. We need to ensure
this is subject to the S101 Inter-State Commission of experts who without any political bias will
be able to determine what is appropriate in the circumstances.
It is this kind of recognition to Australian aboriginals which would not divide the nation nor
cause conflicts but will likely be respected by both those of Aboriginal descent and nonAboriginal descent as it does no more but to recognise the considerable historical value of
Australian Aboriginals and to protect the trading with their art work. With this we need to revert
ss51(xxvi) back to the version to what it was prior to the 1967 referendum.
The real and clear issue should be to remove by referendum section 25 of the constitution. It was
this provision that allowed the states to discriminate against Aboriginals to deny them, but not
all, the right to vote in State and so federal elections. S41 of the constitution protected the rights
of Aboriginals who had obtained from their former colonies (now states) the franchise rights.
.

25

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal
natives shall not be counted.

30

Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose
in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to
be debarred from voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal
population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.

35

Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be
deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up
the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.

40

Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that
when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these
aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South
Australia will have so much the more to pay.
Clause, as read, agreed to.

45

END QUOTE

While reportedly in 1902 the Commonwealth provided for a white only franchise, this was
misused and abused against Aboriginals because s41 of the constitution already protected the
franchise rights of Aboriginals.
p2
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

3
There can be no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution had a white only policy:

10

15

20

25

HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia.
END QUOTE

But this was not directed against Aboriginals, rather against foreign coloured inferior
races As to protect Australian job security, including Australian Aboriginal jobs.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. QUICK (Victoria)-I do not propose to be as severe in my criticism of the provision of the honorable and
learned member (Mr. Symon) to-day as he was in his determined opposition to my proposed clause yesterday.
I would point out, however, two difficulties in the way of adopting his provision. The first is that there is no
definition of the status of "citizen." The clause does not say whether a citizen is a ratepayer of a state, an
adult male, or any member of the population of a state-men, women, children, Chinamen, Japanese,
Hindoos, and other barbarians. Who are the citizens of a state?
Mr. SYMON.-That depends upon the law of the state upon the subject.
Dr. QUICK.-So far as I am aware, there is no law in any colony defining colonial citizenship or state
citizenship. I am merely adopting the line of argument which my honorable and learned friend adopted
yesterday, in taking advantage of technical points.
Mr. SYMON.-That was not my line of argument.
END QUOTE
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

30

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.

35

40

45

50

55

Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
p3
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

4
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

END QUOTE

Do note so that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the
Commonwealth and as such it clearly is relating to external races and Aboriginals should never
have been included in ss51(xxvi) as it basically robbed them of their constitutional equality with
other Australians. This is the end result when you get lawyers who call themselves
constitutional lawyers (an oxymoron) and who have no proper understanding as to the true
meaning and application of the constitution. In the 1950s the then Federal Government was
advised not to use ss51(xxvi) as it had too much baggage and was only permitted to be used to
discriminate. Ironically what Aboriginals did achieve with ss51(xxvi) is that the
Commonwealth now demands that even with attending to a doctor in the medical history one has
to declare to be a Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. As such all you need is some other dictator
to get into power and then can use those records to exterminate those who are identified as
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders descent. No use to claim this will never eventuate because
too often things happen. After all in 1967 the Aboriginals and other electors were deceived in the
con-job referendum that the amendment of ss51(xxvi) would be to provide them with citizenship
where in fact the reverse eventuated, because this section was in fact to deny citizenship
against any race that was subject to any law within ss51(xxvi). As such Aboriginals who had
franchise now in real terms have none. If the intention is to exterminate Aboriginal descent then
by all means make sure we tag them all, perhaps use electronic colours but if we are set to have
them as equal citizens as originally intended by the Framers of the constitution then let us make
sure they are and will be so and no kind of special registration if a person is or isnt of Aboriginal
descent or Torres Strait Islanders.
Ss51(v vxi) currently doesnt permit the Commonwealth to legislate against the general
community and as such cannot be use to protect historical Australian Aboriginal Art and neither
so the selling/trading and ownership of it.
We now have that historical Australian Art work can be destroyed such as by mining companies
because in real constitutional terms the Commonwealth of Australia has no legislative powers to
protect this. Historical Australian Aboriginal Arts not only valuable to those of Aboriginal
descent but also to us all because it is part of the history of what is now called the
Commonwealth of Australia.
The selling , trading and ownership of Australian Aboriginal art should be regulated by experts
in the s101 Inter-State Commission, and not willy nilly upon what politicians may make from it
to harness votes in political elections. As such anyone who may seek to sell art as if they are
Australian Aboriginal art could then be legally dealt with. Likewise the ownership of historical
Australian Aboriginal art, such as on rocks would be subject to the s101 of the constitution InterState Commission decisions, who could value the art works and require special conditions to be
set in each separate instance, which is beyond the powers of the Federal Government to do so.
(iA) Australian Aboriginal historical art, and the selling, trading and ownership of
contemporary Australian Aboriginal art, intra state, interstate or otherwise.
p4
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
This proposed new subsection would in itself recognise the valuable contribution of Australian
Aboriginals in an appropriate manner, as well as would actually provide protection for their
historical art rather than some hollow apology that was more a political statement, to which in
any event a Prime Minister has no constitutional power to make on behalf of the Parliament.
Previously the issue was:
What steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous Constitutional
Recognition.

10

15

20

25

30

Indigenous in my view was a misleading term, because anyone born in the Commonwealth of
Australia is indigenous. And as set out in the email below excluded any opposition to be
submitted to this committee!
Why indeed have a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, but not a Minister for Chinese Affairs? Or a
Minister for Afghan Affairs, etc. After all ss51(xxvi) is not a clause specifically only to
Aboriginals! It should be used in a uniform manner regarding all races! And then we have this
ongoing nonsense about States legislating as to Aboriginals. Which Aboriginals one may ask?
And where are the States legislative powers to do so where the subject matters within ss51 of
concurrent legislative powers of the state and the commonwealth became exclusive
legislative powers the moment the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon a particular
subject matter, other than in regard of taxation where different subjects of taxation are permitted
when not covered by Commonwealth taxation legislation.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

35

40

45

50

Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph saysBut this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
p5
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

6
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
contradiction of federal legislation?

10

Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
concurrent legislation that power does not cease?

15

Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
for all.

20

25

END QUOTE

30

Section 109 of the constitution states:

QUOTE

109 Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the
Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the
extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

35

END QUOTE

This section is also considerably misconceived.

.

40

The application is that when the State within its rightful legislative power legislate for some
subject matter but the Commonwealth prior to it or since has legislated where this may cover
what was legislated by the State then the commonwealth law shall prevail.
.

45

50

55

Let me give an example:

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative
power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is
necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE

The Commonwealth of Australia within its powers to provide for Age and Disability pensions
and other welfare payments in 2009 provided that such payments were subject to the CPI
(consumer Price Index). What this means is that the States (so any delegated powers to
municipal/shire councils) are subject to this provision, as not to undermine the legal principles of
the Commonwealth of Australia. Hence, the State (so councils by their delegated powers) cannot
p6
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

7
increase charges above the CPI. This as to do otherwise would undermine the very financial
security the Commonwealth seeks to provide with its payments. As such, s109 applies for
exercise of incidental powers the Commonwealth has provided for as well as upon pre-existing
State legislation that was in force up to the time the commonwealth commenced to legislate and
the concurrent legislative powers became exclusive legislative powers.
Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which
the words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
will have arisen.
END QUOTE

Therefore all and any state legislation since the 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum that was enacted
after the Commonwealth had already commenced to legislate is and remains to be
unconstitutional and so null and void.
Actually the same is with municipal/shire council rates which the High Court of Australia in
Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth in 1904 held was the exercise of State delegated
land taxation powers, this no longer was constitutionally permissible once the Commonwealth on
11 November 1910 commenced to legislate as to land taxation with its Land Tax Office. The
constitution doesnt provide for any reversal of legislative powers from the Commonwealth to
the States even if the Commonwealth were to abolish legislation subsequently. Hence not just
rate rises above the CPI are unconstitutional but in fact council rates are unconstitutional.
Councils can charge for actual incurred expenses but not as a delegated land taxation power.
What we have is that lawyers are educated in legal studies by those who themselves do not
understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution and as result we
have a judiciary who relies upon false assumed constitutional premises. Section 51 of the
constitution is a constitutional power for the commonwealth, it doesnt provide for powers to the
states. However, when one consider the Hansard records of the Constitution convention debates
then it becomes clear that the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution the legal
principle that the States can exercise legislative powers listed in ss51 of the constitution until the
commonwealth commences to do so. As such, to interpret the true meaning and application of
the constitution one must consider all relevant issues and not just pretend there is some powers
which doesnt exist. Hence, all and any State legislation as to Aboriginals is and remains to be
unconstitutional.
Prior to the 1967 ss51(xxvi) referendum and its subsequent legislation by the commonwealth of
Australia the states had all legislative powers regarding Aboriginals, their historical art work,
their religious and customary conduct, etc. However, this elaborate State legislative power was
diminished totally and the Commonwealth by virtue of s116y of the constitution is prohibited to
legislate as to religion and by this neither can protect Australian Aboriginal religious matters,
being it sacred sites, etc.
By all means Aboriginals themselves must be blamed for the con-job referendum 1967
ss51(xxvi) as after all they pushed for this, but surely after 48 years this matter never having been
resolved, and all we get is politicians mouthing off how they intend to provide for Aboriginal
rights, a political slogan like we have every political election about health, education, taxation,
etc, only to get the same repeated any subsequent election makes it abundantly clear that
politicians are rather in it to cause divisions between electors so they may harness votes in
political elections then to really resolve issues in dispute/conflicts.
p7
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

8
I see absolutely no usefulness in amending the constitution to purport that Aboriginals were the
first Australians, because Australia itself is a new name. It refer to a certain landmass and not the
Commonwealth of Australia, etc. We would I view do better to amend the constitution to protect
Australian Aboriginal historical art work and in that automatically we recognise Australian
Aboriginals, and so for a purpose that benefits all Australians. And to indicate the conflict that
may eventuate from this Recognise campaign we may also consider the email I received in the
past. Surely considering the content of that email we do better to adapt what I recommend and do
justice to all instead of having an ongoing division within our Australian community!
QUOTE 3-4-2015 EMAIL

Forget what lawyers on either side of the argument may claim because they too will seek to serve
not the true meaning and application of the constitution but what suits their partys argument.
15

For example consider the issue of Recognise versus what I quote below and to note the gross
deception upon the general community with the Recognise campaign.
QUOTE 28-3-2015 EMAIL
I sent this to Senators, Cheers Gil

Gil

Mar 28 (2015)

20

To

me
Hide
Photos

25

clip_image002.png
Download All
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: Constitution recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: fait accompli: No
opposing views permitted or considered.

30

35

40

Some time ago I sent a submission to >jscatsi@aph.gov.au< Joint Select Committee on Constitutional
Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, objecting to this proposal on archeological and
historical grounds where evidentiary material clearly shows the current races are not the original people and
are unlikely to even be of close relationship. The evidence cannot be ignored while the committee simply
goes on its merry way making recommendations without any consideration whatsoever of historical and
archeological evidence, but this is exactly what is occurring, the committee is fait accompli as it has no
authority to examine or consider any evidence to the contrary, this is total nonsense and insulting to the
Australian people and an abuse of the democratic process.
The terms of reference are based on:- What steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful
referendum on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition. There is no provisions for any consideration to the
contrarythat being so, my submission was rejected as it had presented factual evidence to the contrary.
This inquiry cannot therefore honestly be considered a serious or genuine Inquiry, it is just a forced opinion
upon the people with the inquiry to justify another seriously erroneous action.

45

This is another flawed opinion of the PM where he is pushing his preferred options without permitting or
accepting any evidence to the contraryit is not a genuine inquiry as it refuses to consider factual evidentiary
material. We heard the PM promising how he would consult with the people and colleagues, yet here we
have him on morning ABC TV (11/2/15) pushing ahead with this totally biased and unjustified action to put
an oddity into our constitution. Is this another broken promise where he fails to consult and consider facts
and opinion?
Who were the first indigenous people?
p8
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

They have been extinct for thousands of yearswake up. This appears beyond the PMs understanding of
archaeological evidence, ample evidence exists of numerous populations prior to and concurrent with each
other going back thousands of years. There were races of giant people here similar to the giant Java-Man,
where huge footprints in stone and huge tools have been well documented. Hundreds of skeletons of Mungo
Man lived 50,000 year ago, a very modern type skeletal structure, whose mitochondrial DNA is totally
different to any known people, and others. 900-year-old African Kilwa and Dutch coins were found in
remote Australia, along with Chines artifacts; British archaeologists stated a mummy from the Jordan Valley
was preserved with Eucalyptus resin from Australia, there is massive evidence. The general population
shook their heads in disbelief at his nonsense.
Historical Fact
When the English settled Australiait was discovered hundreds of year before them by Dutch, Portuguese,
Chinese and Phoeniciansthey found a very stone-age people who had the ability to survive in this

15

20

25

30

35

inhospitable arid land where no European could ever survive. In school we were taught about the worlds last
remaining stoneage people the unique Aborigine and they featured in National Geographic magazine, they
had no permanent homes, gardens or domestic food animals. They used fire to burn the land with massive
uncontrolled bushfires that eventually wiped out all the megafauna, the time-frame proven by archaeology
and science.
Rex Giroy wrote about findings at Kow Swamp in northern Victoria in his Australia The Cradle of
Civilisation; In 1967 ancient burial sites between 9,000 & 15,000 years old were excavated by
archaeologists, where skeletal remains displayed notable anatomical differences to modern Aboriginals,
bigger, heavier built, huge jaws and teeth, up to three times the size of modern man. Like the giant Java-Man
who may have also live here. Other archaeological finds of very ancient skeletons and huge stone tools of
such size they could only have been used by huge powerful people.
At Cowra, NSW they found two half intact footprints in mudstone measuring one meter long and 45
centimetres wide, local aborigines say they were made by a giant man who stood 7.6 metres tall. At Penrith
NSW there are six, 61 cm long by 46 cm wide human like fossil footprints. Similar finds were reportedly
made in the Townsville-Rockhampton area and Bathurst NSW, also in numerous other locations. At Roper
River NT, there are rock carvings of giant footprints 38 cm long.
In Lake Mungo, south-western NSW, the skeletal remains about 50,000 years old displayed finer modern
features similar to modern humans, but their DNA is different from any know humans, where did they come
from? Who killed them? These people co-existed. Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA with that of
ancient and modern Aborigines has indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian Aborigines. Theses
skeletal remains were subject to detailed investigation due their unusual modern characteristics. The results
indicated that Mungo Man was an extinct subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor
of contemporary humans. These results, if correct, may support the multiregional origin of modern humans
hypothesis.
The current aboriginal was preceded by numerous other races and it is possible the original inhabitants of
Australia migrated-out-of-Australia to colonise other lands with Australia being the Cradle of Civilisation?
Pygmies

40

45

Manning Clarkes History of Australia records these people, so does John Mulvaneys and Johan
Kammingas Prehistory of Australia, as does Josephine Floods Archaeology of the Dreamtime, points
out Pleistocene human remains lie outside the range of present-day Australian skeletal form ,
However evidence suggests that another group of people were here, perhaps 100,000 years ago (The
Australian 15-5-92).
(Picture not included)
Pygmy aboriginal encampment in the rainforest behind Cairns, 1890.
This is the photograph (attributed to A. Atkinson) found by Norman Tindale in 1938. Norman Tindale wrote
about these little people with photographs in his book The little people of the Rainforest last century. These
people were negritos with frizzy hair as were the Tasmanian aborigines.

p9
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10
Thousands of years ago sea levels were about 150 m lower linking Papua-New Guinea and other
Islands with narrow channels separating Indonesian Islands from Australia allowing easy migration of
unrelated races to Australia and all islands.

10

15

20

It was published the ancient Phoenicians had a gold and copper mine near Gympie, the remnants are still
there. Chinese and Egyptian artefacts were reportedly discoverer in central Queensland. Chinese records
show about 4,500 years ago the emperor had Kangaroos in his zoo. British archaeologists stated a mummy
from the Jordan Valley was preserved with Eucalyptus resin from Australia.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reported
"evidence of substantial gene flow (migration) between Indian populations and Australia about 4,000 years
ago". That they brought the Dingo with them. (If the Dingo was a native animal it would be a marsupial not a
placental mammal).
History shows that Capt Cook was not the first to discover Terra Australis, 900-year-old African Kilwa
coins and Dutch coins were found in remote Australia along with aboriginal rock art depicting numerous
different types of ships. (Australian Press 2013). Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon landed here in 1606, they
explored the west and southern coast calling it New Holland; many years before Janszoon arrived,
Portuguese sailors landed (circa 1521) and even mapped parts of Australia (Terra Java).
In the rock-art area of the Kimberley Ranges is another valley where the paintings are totally different to that
of the Aboriginals, they are very similar to cave paintings in Europe. When asked who painted these, the
tribal elder (SBS TV) replied They were painted by the people before our time began, an admission of prior
occupation, these are totally different from local rock-art. The Bradfields nearby are different art from all
others. Who were the artisans?
PM Abbot wants to recognise the original owners in the constitution preamble, Why? For what
benefit. They have been dead thousands of years. They were not related to the current mixed race
aborigines.

25

This referendum proposal is pathetically nave, understand the facts, and stop making a fool of Australia.
Sincerely
G J May
1 Kirklees Place
Forestdale 4118

30

11/2/15
Gil
END QUOTE 28-3-2015 EMAIL

35

40

I urge you to appropriately consider the matters set out above as too often people are denied their
constitutional rights because politicians/lawyers do not grasp even after more than 114 years of
federation what the constitution stands for. In fact this republican argument is a clear example to
me that those utter fools promoting it havent got a clue as to what the true meaning and
application of the constitution is about. But that is an issue fort another time.
I look forwards to your positive reply!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

45

(
Awaiting your response,

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

p10
9-9-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati