ISSUE The right not to vote & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

I below have reproduced quotations that were part of my written submission ADDRESS TO
THE COURT of my UNCHALLENGED SUCCESSFUL APPEALS on 19 July 2006 in the
County Court of Victoria exercising federal jurisdiction involving a S78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS regarding compulsory voting being unconstitutional,
regarding FAILING TO VOTE. As such, the Commonwealth of Australia regarding
immunisation to exclude religious objections violates s116 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK). The Commonwealth cannot achieve something indirectly that is
cannot or is prohibited to achieve directly.
Do note; Typing errors have been left in the quotations!
ADDRESS TO THE COURT
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
(19-7-2006)
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should
extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.
Pp. 361-367.

http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
support materials provided in the following link:
Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
exemption to be challenged.
And
p1
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do
not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are
betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as
this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as
this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious
objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to non
religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is
entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

Section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is the equivalent of
this Establishment Clause of freedom of religion.
Moreover, the Framers of the constitution embedded the legal principle in the constitution of
political liberty. As such any notion of compulsory voting is unconstitutional.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE 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.
END QUOTE

And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE

It must be considered that the actual voting is the filling out of the ballot papers and that is
secret. If the attendance to a polling station was to be deemed to be part of the voting process,
such as giving a persons name and address to allow a person access to a ballot paper then to
hold this must be in secrecy, means not even electoral officials could ask a persons for
identification. If the FAILING TO VOTE constitutes that the electoral official didnt receive
the ballot paper in the mail this even so the elector may have actually posted it, then one can be
subject to postal theft or other issues beyond the control of the elector, including that for
example Australia Post machinery may have caused an ballot papers to fall out of sight of postal
workers in the room, as was recorded to have eventuated with an article for about 50 years.
It should be understood that the Post master is the agent for the electoral official to accept the
ballot paper(s) and as such if the elector claims to have posted the ballot paper(s) then it is for the
post master to prove (as agent for the electoral official) that this was never done.
This is not a sheer impossibility because the postal authorities may have a barcode or other
system that can identify each item posted. The question is then posed if this system itself would
undermine the secrecy of voting, if attendance or mere posting constitutes voting.
p2
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

When I attended to the 2014 Victorian state election polling station accompanied with my wife, I
did not only enter the polling station but also left through the exit door. Just that I was not asked
to give my personal details.
As such if one can be excused on religious grounds not to attend even to the polling station or
not even having to post a ballot paper/papers then the voting must be deemed to be eventuating
from the moment of not posting or not attending and this must also be deemed to be secret.
If the electoral official in error or otherwise marks of a name on the roll as to have attended, a
conduct outside the ability of any elector to control, but then it turns out the elector never
attended to the polling station (say ill in hospital) can it then be held that nevertheless the elector
in violation of legal provisions voted more than once, if the elector voted in hospital?
Clearly, if voting is secret that even for electoral officials or other electors to see an elector to
deposit any ballot paper in a ballot box would violate the electors right to vote in secret.
Denning L.J. in Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327.
QUOTE
When a contract is made by post it is clear law throughout the common law countries that the acceptance
is complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is put into the post box, and that is the place where the
contract is made. But there is no clear rule about contracts made by telephone or by Telex.
Communications by these means are virtually instantaneous and stand on a different footing.
The problem can only be solved by going in stages. Let me first consider a case where two people make a
contract by word in the presence of one another. Suppose, for instance, that I shout an offer to a man
across a river or a courtyard but I do not hear his reply because it is drowned by an aircraft flying
overhead. There is no contract at that moment. If he wishes to make a contract he must wait till the
aircraft is gone and then shout back his acceptance so that I can hear what he says. Not until I have his
answer am I bound. I do not agree with the observation of Hill J., in Newcomb v. De Roos.
Now take a case where two people make a contract by telephone. Suppose, for instance, that I make an
offer to a man by telephone and, in the middle of his reply. The line goes dead so that I do not hear his
words of acceptance. There is no contract at that moment. The other man may not know the precise
moment when the line failed. But he will know that the telephone conversation was abruptly broken off,
because people usually say something to signify the end of the conversation. If he wishes to make a
contract, he must therefore get through again so as to make sure that I heard. Suppose next that the line
does not go dead, but it is nevertheless so indistinct that I do not catch what he says and I ask him to
repeat it. He then repeats it and I hear his acceptance. The contract is made, not on the first time when I
do not hear, but only the second time when I do hear. If he does not repeat it, there is no contract. The
contract is only complete when I have his answer accepting the offer.
Lastly take the Telex. Suppose a clerk in a London office taps out on the teleprinter an offer which is
immediately recorded on the teleprinter in a Manchester office, and a clerk at that end taps out an
acceptance. If the line goes dead in the middle of the sentence of acceptance, the teleprinter motor will
stop. There is then obviously no contract. The clerk at Manchester must get through again and send his
complete sentence. But it may happen that the line does not go dead, yet the message does not get through
to London. Thus the clerk at Manchester may tap out his message of acceptance and it will not be recorded
in London because the ink at the London end fails or something of that kind. In that case the Manchester
clerk will not know of the failure but the London clerk will know of it and will immediately send back a
message not receiving. Then, when the fault is rectified, the Manchester clerk will repeat his message.
Only then is there a contract. If he does not repeat it, there is no contract. It is not until message is
received that the contract is made.
In all the instances I have taken so far, the man who sends the message of acceptance knows that it has
not been received or he has reason to know it. So he must repeat it. But suppose that he does not know that
his message did not get home. He thinks it has. This may happen if the listener on the telephone does not
catch the words of acceptance, but nevertheless does not trouble to ask for them to be repeated: or if the
ink on the teleprinter fails at the receiving end, but the clerk does not ask for the message to be repeated:
so that the man who sends an acceptance reasonably believes that his message has been received. The
offeror in such circumstances is clearly bound, because he will be estopped from saying that he did not
receive the message of acceptance. It is his own fault that he did not get it. But if there should be a case
where the offeror without any fault on his part does not receive the message of acceptance-yet the sender
of it reasonably believes it has got home when it has not-then I think there is no contract.
My conclusion is that the rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is different from
the rule about the post. The contract is only completed when the acceptance is received by the offeror: and
the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received.
END QUOTE
p3
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3

County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
(19-7-2006)
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

http://tex2.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=23768&activity=Second+Reading&title=EDUCATION+%28AMENDMENT%29+BILL&date1=
21&date2=October&date3=1998&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'RELIGIOUS'%0a%09and+data+c
ontains+'OBJECTION'+%29%0a
Title
EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
House
ASSEMBLY
Activity Second Reading
Members
MILDENHALL
Date
21 October 1998
Page
608
Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) -The Age editorial of 24 February probably got the balance right. The latter part of it says:
A pluralist society such as ours demands more than freedom of religion and freedom from stateimposed religion. It requires respect for diversity, opportunity to exercise choice and tolerance of
different faiths.
It would be wrong, for example, for schoolchildren to be compelled to take part in religious
observances against their parents' wishes. The law makes it clear that such participation must be
voluntary. On the other hand, Australia's Christian heritage cannot be erased or unduly confined. And
such festivals as Christmas and Easter have in reality become events of popular culture as much as
religious celebrations.
The notion that state schoolchildren whose parents and teachers so wish should not be allowed to
take part in an inoffensive Easter or Christmas pageant in a church hall because a few parents object
is an affront to commonsense and reasonable tolerance. If the law is indeed so restrictive as to make
such a free choice and popular event illegal, then the law is an ass. The government's instincts are
right: the regulations -- or, if necessary, the law -- should be amended to give individual schools and
communities more flexibility in such cases.
That editorial probably has the balance and the arguments right.
http://tex2.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSE
MBLY&speech=5105&activity=Second+Reading&title=HISTORIC+BUILDINGS+%28FURTHER+AMENDME
NT%29+BILL&date1=28&date2=May&date3=1991&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'RELIGIOUS'
%0a%09and+data+contains+'OBJECTION'+%29%0a
Title
HISTORIC BUILDINGS (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL
House
ASSEMBLY
Activity Second Reading
Members
SPEAKER
Date
28 May 1991
Page
2583
It is inappropriate for governments to interfere in religious observance. It is not for a former
Methodist minister, with great respect to the Minister, to be telling His Grace the Catholic
Archbishop of Melbourne whether he can have his high altar in the middle of the transept, in the
northern end of the transept or anywhere else in the transept.
Page 2587
Let religious belief and religious forms and observance be appropriate to the particular denomination.
It is not for us to be telling the great Synagogue of Melbourne that it cannot do this or it cannot do
that. It is not for us to tell a Muslim community how it will set up its mosque.
p4
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

As a Parliament we must learn to respect other people's religious beliefs and the form of religious
service they follow. If that means making changes to buildings which are their buildings and which
they have looked after for generations and brought down the generations for us as part of our
heritage, that respect is all important. That is fundamental in our community and will be fundamental
in the coalition's approach to historic buildings legislation.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

Compulsory or not to vote?

With todays processes that discrimination ought not to exist, it is then remarkable that the Parliament doesnt
have a compulsory voting system in regard of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, yet forces ordinary
Australians having to vote!
Are we being oversensitive to Aboriginals and Torres Strait islanders or insensitive to the rights of Australians to
have the same anti discriminatory system applied as the Anti Discrimination Act 1975 pursues?
THEOPHANOUS v THE HERALD AND WEEKLY TIMES LIMITED AND ANOTHER F.C. 94/041
Constitutional Law (Cth) - Defamation (1994) 182 CLR 104 (1994) 124 ALR 1 (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-297
In 1901, voting was not compulsory in any State.); the
extraordinary development and increased utilization of the means of mass
communication; advances in general education; and, the increasing appreciation
and assertion of the intrinsic equality of all human beings.
When we look upon the Parliament. Such as in a double dissolution, the Court has held that those Parliamentarians
can vote as they wish and do as they wish. Yet, the parliamentarians do not give the elector the same choice.
A Parliamentarian simply refrain from voting, or doesnt show up, yet when it come to an election their conduct is to
enforce electors to appear for voting.
I have never bothered about compulsory voting, until I notices that we have that electors are forced whereas there
are different rules for the Parliamentarians, the Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginals. If this is to show non
discriminative conduct, then there is a failure of understanding what the word discrimination actually stands for.
In my view, the parliament ought not force electorate to having to vote, if they themselves do not show a proper
example to force themselves to vote.
Also, if it is good enough to put in place how electors must fill in a ballot paper (as such how to cast their vote) then
let have the same regime in Parliament, that not only each member must be present but is dictated how a vote must
be cast. It is no good of grandstanding that the electorate must vote within a certain regime whereas parliamentarians
do not have to do so.
Voting technics ought to be universal throughout the country!
It is the same where parliamentarians have at time utter disgraceful conduct in the parliament, and children see that
kind of conduct displayed. Yet, when the children mimic the same they are in for a punishment.
Same like the bloody idiot road safety advertising, whereas a child using the same is being punished. If a private
company were to have used such offensive kind of slogan, then they would have quickly had their add banned.
Standards ought to be set by the parliament to show one of non discriminating conditions. As such, unless the
Parliament adopts its own rule that each Member must attend for each voting (After all they are getting paid to
represent the electorate) and vote in a certain prescribed pattern, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ought be
amended to make voting and attendances non compulsory.
We ought to look at this way. If say, 45% percent of the people wanting to vote desire to vote for a particular
political party and the rest for all other parties, then if then the forcible voting causes people to vote more then the
45% percent it doesnt make it that the party has been duly and properly elected if then gaining office. As those who
voted against their will may have expressed their votes regardless of their true intentions. Being it as a protest vote,
or otherwise.
I recall that Senator Ray during the Melbourne 12 August 2002 hearing raised the issue of voting on ballot papers.
I for one can state that I hold the Senate voting for above the box only, being intimidating and denies a FAIR AND
PROPER voting. I am well aware that the High Court of Australia made its ruling about the Langer case etc. But
p5
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

reality is that people are forced to vote in a certain way because if they do not vote above the line with a mere
single mark, then they have to fill in the entire sheet of 57 names where they want to vote independent.
Meaning, more likely mistakes being made and at a considerable more usage of time.
If then there is a long row of people standing outside the polling place, it could cause considerable friction if electors
all were to vote below the line. By this, people have a pressure as to vote quickly, and this clearly interferes with
FAIR AND PROPER elections.
In my view, the compulsory voting serves really no other purpose but to fill the coffers of political parties in the
main, as they then can get more money for the overall voting.
After all, if the Parliament were to allow for non-compulsory voting, and say 30% of the electors wouldnt bother to
vote, then this would have a significant financial impact upon political parties of tens of millions.
Section 51 of the Constitution provides that legislation must be for the good government not for the good of
political parties and as such, in that regard the parliament has no alternative but to amend legislation to make voting
to be non-compulsory. If it fails to do so then it only proves it couldnt give a darn about what is good for the
public rather that the entire matters is self interest of political unionism
Perhaps the ROYAL COMMISSION in the building industry ought to compare builders workers tactics
complained about with those of the Commonwealth Parliament, of rorting etc.
They ought to compare the alleged abuses within the building industry with that of Tony Abbott to unconstitutional
force, by blackmail, for the States to accept Commonwealth Industrial Relations or be without funds for certain
projects.
I am not a builder worker and neither have any associations with any builder worker, to the best of my knowledge,
and perhaps that is why I can see the injustice in having a ROYAL COMMISSION in the one but not in the other!
In any event, back to compulsory voting, an artificial voting by making it compulsory, doesnt enhance elections at
all.
And, if we have Senator Ray making clear, as I understood it, that voting isnt compulsory, then why is the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 not showing the same?
I do wish to point out;
(14)
Without limiting the circumstances that may constitute a valid and sufficient reason for not voting,
the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a
valid and sufficient reason for the failure of the elector to vote.
My religion is not to do something I view is unlawful, and so I didnt vote, as I did set out previously already.
Muldowney v State of South Australia & Anor C22/1993 (3 October 1995)
BRENNAN CJ: But it does not really do that, does it? It prohibits the advocating of that which is not
proscribed and what is not proscribed is unenforceable in any event. This is a secret ballot process, the Act
makes that perfectly clear. If you found an unfilled ballot paper you would not or ought not to know
who put it in anyhow. So 85(2) is only giving legislative acknowledgment to what is, in fact, the truth.
Section 126 on the other hand is designed to prevent the development of a practice which might subvert the
representative process.
And
The other matter it would be worth drawing to the Court's attention about the Electoral Act is section 85(2),
the provision that permits the unmarked ballot paper. The effect of that section is, in our submission, not
altogether clear in this regard. If the Act did not contain that provision, the law as we understand it
would be that an elector who put an unmarked ballot paper in the ballot box would not have
committed an offence.
TOOHEY J: When you say "that provision", Mr Solicitor, are you speaking of section 85(2)?
MR SELWAY: Yes, your Honour. Our understanding of the cases dealing with this and like provisions sorry, section 85 leaving out subsection (2) if it was not there - is that those provisions do not create an
offence of either making an informal vote or not voting at all so long as one goes through the process of
p6
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

attending at the polling station, having your name crossed off, picking your ballot paper up and putting the
ballot paper in the ballot box. If I could just refer the Court to Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271;
the case of Lubecke v Little (1970) VR 807, at 811 - and this case is not on anyone's list, I do not think;
and a case on the South Australian Electoral Act before the 1985 Act, Douglas v Ninnes (1976) 14 SASR
377, at 379. The effect of that proposition is that it is not an offence, as it were, even apart from section
85(2), to leave the ballot paper unmarked.
233 Vote to be marked in private
(1) Except as otherwise prescribed the voter upon receipt of the ballot-paper shall without delay:
(a) retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her
vote on the ballot-paper;
(b) fold the ballot-paper so as to conceal his or her vote and:
(i) if the voter is not an absent voterdeposit it in the ballot-box; or
(ii) if the voter is an absent voterreturn it to the presiding officer; and
(c) quit the booth.
(2) A presiding officer shall enclose each ballot-paper of an absent voter returned to the presiding officer
under subsection (1) in the envelope bearing the declaration made by the voter under subsection
222(1), securely fasten the envelope and place it in the ballot-box.
232 Voters to be recorded
(1)The presiding officer or a polling official at a polling place shall, immediately upon handing a
ballot-paper to a person whose name is on the certified list of voters for the polling place, place a mark
against the persons name on that list.
(1) The presiding officer at a polling place shall make a record of the name of each elector who casts a
declaration vote at the polling place and, in the case of an absent voter, of the Division for which the
elector declares under subsection 222(1) that he or she is enrolled, and shall, at the close of the poll,
forward the record, duly certified by the presiding officer, in accordance with section 228.
While on the subject. While Section 232 refers to the presiding officer shall on the certified list of voters, etc, I
view it ought to relate to electors not voters This, as an elector is a person who may attend but unless having
caste his or her choice in accordance with the legal requirements of the Act cant be deemed to be a voter.
As such, a n elector must not be deemed a voter where he/she didnt cast a vote but merely handed in a blank ballot
paper.
If the Act accepts that a person is a voter merely by giving name and address, then the elector can walk out without
even going into a polling booth having been deemed to have cast his/her vote at that very moment.
As section 232 refers to Vote to be marked in private then one doesnt become a voter unless one actually
exercise the voting itself!
Likewise, Section 231 using the term person claims to vote ought to be person claims the right to vote, this as
the person is not claiming to vote but the right to vote. If the officer doesnt accept the person being entitled to vote
then no voting occurs. As such, there is a distinct difference between claiming a right to vote and claiming to vote.
Also 234(b) using the term read the declaration to the voter appears to be misleading, as is with most of the
section. The elector doesnt become a voter unless being involved with the actual voting! As such, it must refer to
the elector not voter.
In Section 234A subsection (1) is satisfied that a voter is unable to enter the polling place ought to be amended to
is satisfied that an elector is unable to enter the polling place. As at that time no vote is was being cast.
So Subsection (2) has voter to vote outside ought to be elector to vote outside and (2) voter to vote outside
ought to be elector to vote outside . This, while subsection (2)(b) is correct to state voter votes as then the actual
voting occurs.
I will not go through the entire Act but it ought to be very obvious that if the Act stipulates that one must follow a
certain pattern of voting, then unless this is actually being done, there can be no issue of a person having voted!

p7
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

If a person is deemed to be a voter from the moment having made known his/her claimed identity, even if this is
immediately found to be false, then technically, the person would be deemed to have voted without even having
been given a ballot paper.
Irrespective if a person were or were not to mark in private his/her ballot paper in accordance with the legal
requirements of the relevant Act, one could only refer to a elector being a voter when actually engaged in casting the
vote in the polling booth. A person who is walking to a pollingbooth but then for whatever reason walks away, cant
be deemed to be a voter having failed to fulfil the legal requirements of the Act to mark the ballot paper in
accordance to the required system.
Neither can a person be deemed to be a voter, for the purpose of the Act, if the person leaving the polling booth
accidentally drops the ballot paper and the presiding officer (those acting for him/her) happen to notice that the form
is blank! In those circumstances, no vote was taking place. This, as during counting blank forms are disregarded and
not calculated as a vote! Clearly, it would be inconsistent with the Act if on the one hand a person could be deemed
to be a voter while on the other hand his vote wouldnt be counted. An informal vote ought to be those where a
person actually expressed a voting intention but for some reason the vote was not correctly expressed as was
required by law to be a valid expressed vote. A blank vote is abstaining from voting!
It is notable that in section 237 the Act specifically refers to person where the elector doesnt vote but has
someone nominated to vote for him/her.
Clearly, this underlines precisely my argument that instead of person one refers to elector where it is the
elector in other sections, who arrive at the polling station.
While there appear to be many sections dealing with the elector going to the polling station and what the official
shall do, it appears to me that there is no set out that a elector at arrival SHALL attend to the official. Section 231
refers to the right to receive a ballot paper and Section 232 as to the duty of the officer to record but no provision
appears to exist as to require the elector actually having to attend to the polling official.
In my case, I attended to the polling station by car. There appears nothing in the legislation, I was able so far to
detect, that I must actually go to the official. Rather, what does occur if I do attend to the official.
As chapter 221 refers to Entitled to vote then this doesnt make it compulsory to vote as one can have the
entitlement and one has a choice to take up the rights conferred upon one selves or not. An entitlement by a will
and testament forexample doesnt obligate a person having to accept the entitlement, however, if doing so then the
person is bound by the entire provisions of the will
Meaning, that as an election I do not need to report to the electoral officer however, if I do so then I can be held
responsible to comply with the legal requirement so set out in the legislation.
As such, the conduct of having to cast a vote in a certain pattern only applies when one actually accepts the ballot
paper of the relevant officer. If one doesnt report to the officer, then one can still have attended at the polling station
but not having to comply with filling out any ballot paper.
Section 245, while referring to It shall be a duty of every elector to vote at each election. It doesnt actually require
a person to report to an official at the polling station. As such, despite the Act setting out an elaborate system for
voting, nothing indicates that not taking the ballot paper isnt voting.
Subsection 245(2) for the official who appeared to have failed to vote at the election also is questionable, as this
would be more of a guessing game. The official has no way to know which elector handed in a blank form, and as
such failed to cast a vote.
As the transcripts of the JSCEM inquiry indicates in one area 188 incorrect markings existed where officials had
wrongly marked an electors name and those actually having attended were not shown as such. It would be absurd,
that if there is such considerable failure of proper markings, then electors not guilty of any wrongdoing then are
faced to prove their innocence!
It is then GUILTY until proven innocent., this goes against Section 51 for good government, as it conflicts
with the Magna Carte Charter provisions.
Section 222 Where electors may vote not being where electors must vote as such doesnt show any legal
obligation that if one doesnt accept a ballot paper one cant vote elsewhere, being at home or else, without being in
breach of the provisions of the Act. As such a person can within Section 245 having complied with the
compulsory to vote by voting at home and then throwing the vote into the waste bin.
Section 219 related to Participation by candidates in conduct of election

p8
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

 A candidate shall not in any way take part in the conduct of an election difficulty is, that the Candidate is part of
the conduct of an election when nominated as a candidate. The candidate might not be personally involved in the
conduct of the polling on the day polling is occurring, but the election is the election process of which the candidate
is the vital link. After all, without any candidates there is ano polling required or possible.
The usage in any way means, that in real terms the candidate cant even appoint or direct scrutineers to go to
particular polling boots! See also Section 217, where it shows that a Scrutineer represents the candidate.
Yet, the Electoral officer request the candidates to authorise scrutineers etc.
In my view, this section ought to be clear about its intention, that the candidate shall not be involved in the conduct
of the actually polling other then casting his/her vote but may otherwise be involved in the conduct of the election,
being it standing at the appropriate permitted distance outside a polling booth or having scrutineers representing
him/her at the polling place.
In Section 234 the presiding officer actually is required to involve a scrutineer (representing the candidate) and as
such, this clearly involved the scrutineer in the conduct of the election.
The problem is that for many electors the usage of the word election is a mystery, as despite it being used in
singular form it seems to apply at times to two different polls, being the Senate and House of Representatives and at
other occasions not. The word Election is used for the election process and at other times appears to be used in
regard of polling.
If the Act is vague and aloof about what it really means, then how can electors be really aware what are the real legal
requirements. The moment a elector needs to consult a lawyer to have it explained, it means the Act is failing to be
for good government as unless the citizen can understand what is legally required from them by any Act, the Act
is no more but a failure!
The Parliament has an obligation to express its intention with any legislation in such manner that is understandable
to the very citizens it represent.
Section 198 is also non sensical as it really doesnt even allow a postal official or consulate to induce an elector to
had over a postal ballot paper for purpose of having it send with normal postal services or with diplomatic post.
Again, the section fails to show appropriate exclusions.
Also, with Section 180(2) if a candidate dies, say on polling day, then Section 245 etc clearly would be nonsensical,
in that a person unknow to the death of a candidate might believe to be forced to have to vote only to find not having
voted for the purpose of this section as the election is deemed to have failed.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA v. THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v. THE COMMONWEALTH ;
QUEENSLAND v. THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201
66. The proclamation in terms of s. 57 convened a joint sitting of the
members "... at which they may deliberate and shall vote together upon each of
the said proposed laws as last proposed by the House of Representatives". The
authorization or direction to the members was not compulsory. It mistakes the
nature of the Houses of Parliament to suppose that it was. They could not be
required by the Governor-General to deal with each of the laws, or prevented
by him from debating or voting on any other subject. And this Court could not
interfere with their deliberations. (The Bill of Rights, art. 9 stated that
the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to
be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament (1 Wm and
My Sess. 2 c. 2. See Constitution s. 49; Cormack v. Cope (1974) 131 CLR 432
). (at p293)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989
108 Voting not compulsory
Voting at Regional Council elections is not compulsory.
143B Voting not compulsory
Voting at TSRA elections is not compulsory.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989
An Act to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, a Torres Strait Regional
Authority, an Indigenous Land Corporation and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial
Development Corporation, and for related purposes
p9
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

WHEREAS the people of Australia voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution so that the Parliament of
Australia would be able to make special laws for peoples of the aboriginal race;
AND WHEREAS the people whose descendants are now known as Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait
Islanders were the inhabitants of Australia before European settlement;
AND WHEREAS they have been progressively dispossessed of their lands and this dispossession occurred
largely without compensation, and successive governments have failed to reach a lasting and equitable agreement
with Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders concerning the use of their lands;
AND WHEREAS it is the intention of the people of Australia to make provision for rectification, by such
measures as are agreed by the Parliament from time to time, including the measures referred to in this Act, of the
consequences of past injustices and to ensure that Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders receive that full
recognition within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse
culture, fully entitle them to aspire;
AND WHEREAS it is also the wish of the people of Australia that there be reached with Aboriginal persons and
Torres Strait Islanders a real and lasting reconciliation of these matters;
AND WHEREAS it is the firm objective of the people of Australia that policies be maintained and developed by
the Australian Government that will overcome disadvantages of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders to
facilitate the enjoyment of their culture;
AND WHEREAS it is appropriate to further the aforementioned objective in a manner that is consistent with the
aims of self-management and self-sufficiency for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders;
AND WHEREAS it is also appropriate to establish structures to represent Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait
Islanders to ensure maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and
implementation of programs and to provide them with an effective voice within the Australian Government;
AND WHEREAS the Parliament seeks to enable Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders to increase their
economic status, promote their social well-being and improve the provision of community services;
AND WHEREAS the Australian Government has acted to protect the rights of all of its citizens, and in
particular its indigenous peoples, by recognising international standards for the protection of universal human rights
and fundamental freedoms through:
(a) the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination and other standard-setting instruments such as the International Covenants on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights; and
(b) the acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
WORLD BOOK (International Deluxe English Edition)
entitle, transitive verb, -tled, -tling.1. to give a claim or right (to); provide with a reason to ask or get
something. Ex. The one who wins is entitled to first prize. A ticket will entitle you to admission. (SYN)
empower, qualify, enable. 2. to give the title of; name. Ex. The author entitled his book "Treasure Island."
The Queen of England is also entitled "Defender of the Faith." (SYN) denominate, designate. 3. to give or call
by an honorary title. Also, intitle.
The word entitle in my view, doesnt mean one is bound to vote, rather it gives the elector a choice to do so.
221 Elections at which electors entitled to vote
(1) In the case of a Senate election, an elector shall only be admitted to vote for the election of Senators
for the State or Territory for which he or she is enrolled.
(2) In the case of a House of Representatives election, an elector shall only be admitted to vote for the
election of a member for the Division for which he or she is enrolled.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the electoral Rolls in force at the time of the election shall be
conclusive evidence of the right of each person enrolled thereon (other than a person whose name has
been placed on a Roll in pursuance of a claim made under section 100 and who will not have attained
18 years of age on the date fixed for the polling in the election) to vote as an elector, unless a person
shows by his or her answers to the questions prescribed by section 229 that he or she is not entitled to
vote.
I have noticed that when there are two or more compartments attached in a polling booth one can at times see a voter
looking next to the other voter as to how that voter fills in their ballot paper.

p10
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

I view, that the wording as to screen the voter from observation, means that the voter in totality cant be
observed, at the time of marking a ballot paper. (My wife doesnt agree with this, I must admit. She holds just the
marking.).
206 Separate voting compartments
Polling booths shall have separate voting compartments, constructed so as to screen the voters
from observation while they are marking their ballot-papers, and each voting compartment shall be
furnished with a pencil for the use of voters.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

A matter that shouldnt be overlooked is that the Commonwealth can only provide for
UNIFORM laws (other than s96) and as such it cannot exclude Aboriginals from voting but
not others. I will not now set out the UNIFORM issues as this would take up too much of
space and is not needed as the documents dealing with this issue are published in my books in the
INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal matters as well as those
published at my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati should be sufficient to check it all out.
In my view all and any electors therefore can legitimately refuse to vote in the DOUBLE
DISSOLUTION election if this were to proceed on 2 July 2016, and this in addition to other
issues such as that I have already issued a 20160418-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. SchorelHlavka O.W.B. ISSUE -DOUBLE DISSOLUTION AT ONCE OR NOT AT ALL & the
constitution
(https://www.scribd.com/doc/309525607/20160418-Press-Release-Mr-g-hSchorel-hlavka-o-w-b-Issue-Double-Dissolution-at-Once-or-Not-at-All-the-Constitution) that I
view the DOUBLE DISSOLUTION would in the circumstances violate the legal requirements of
s57 of the constitution.
It is my constitutional right not to exercise my right to vote and if all electors were to follow my
example then those political parties spending millions of dollars in advertising upon the
presumption they will get paid per primary vote then may discover that they will not receive
the millions of dollars, a form as I see it of karma. But that is for another time to further write
about.
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)

p11
30-4-2016
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati