1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM

10-4-2015

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

Indonesian President Mr. Iriana Joko Widodo C/o consular@kjri-melbourne.org, economy@kjrimelbourne.org, pensosbud@kjri-melbourne.org, indonemb@kbri-canberra.org.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Frank Chung frank.chung@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au

10

15

Ref; 20150410-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re Is the Republic of Indonesia now a state in the
Commonwealth of Australia

20

25

Tony,
I am pleased to discover that in regard of my 15-2-2015 correspondence to you regarding
monies loaned to Indonesia has been clarified by the first law officer of the Commonwealth
Senator George Brandis, Attorney-General by way of his 2 April 2015 correspondence. (1 April
is ordinary referred to as April fools day but perhaps it is 2 April? I have reproduced below both
the content of my 15 February 2015 email as well as the response received from Senator George
Brandis, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. This also so it can be checked that
the correspondence if from Senator George Brandis Attorney-General personally and not some
nitwit staff member who may not know what he/she is talking about.
.

30

35

40

45

50

To explain what I view Senator George Brandis Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of
Australia amounts to I will quote the Framers of the Constitution also!
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. KINGSTON:
I should like to say, sir, that although I confine my remarks to the question of the carving of future colonies
out of existing provinces, and to the question of their admission to the union, I do trust that our constitution
may be of such a character that while, in the terms of the resolution which was carried at the Melbourne
conference only last year, we make provision for the admission of what were then described as the remoter
colonies of Australasia-words which I believe were intended to refer particularly to New Zealand-we shall
not lose sight of the possibility that at some time or other, perhaps shortly it may be considered desirable to
extend the jurisdiction of a united Australia to all British colonies in the Pacific. I feel more particularly
impelled to refer to this matter on account of the course which was suggested by Lord Derby in connection
with the attempted annexation of New Guinea. It does seem to me that if we had had in existence at that
time, as was pointed out by Lord Derby, a government representative of the whole of Australasia which could
have spoken with a united voice on the subject of the imperial attitude towards the island in question, we
should not at the present moment have occasion to deplore the appropriation of a portion of that great
territory by a foreign country. Under these circumstances, I think we should do well to make provision for the
admission into the union which we are proposing to create, not only of what may be generally termed the
remoter colonies of Australasia, but of all British colonies which may now exist, or which may hereafter
be founded in the Pacific, and which it may appear to a federal government should be subjected to
Australian control.
END QUOTE
p1
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DIBBS:

55

I object, in connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as independent as any in the
world, even England itself, so far as the freedom of our position is concerned-to the word "province."
There may be something more dignified in the use of the word "state." We are not going to become
provinces. I do not think we are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess,
and which those who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal
form of government. We may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we have endeavoured to
put before the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their
minds that in joining a federal union we give up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted
in them which I shall do my utmost in Committee to strike out-

60

except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and
authority of the national federal government.

65

I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any clear
interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a
constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be
preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question
of the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your
provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding.

70

END QUOTE

75

80

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1.

85

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

90

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."

95
END QUOTE

100

105

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
96 Financial assistance to States
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament
otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions
as the Parliament thinks fit.
END QUOTE

It is clear that s96 referring States relates to the states within s106 of the constitution;
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
p2
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

3
110

115

106 Saving of Constitutions

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the
establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be,
until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
END QUOTE

This is unless obviously the following is applied:

120

125

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

QUOTE
121 New States may be admitted or established
The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or
establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either
House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.
END QUOTE

All right I anticipate you so far have been able to follow what I have set out in view you as I
understand it are a Rhodes Scholar lawyer.
130

135

140

145

150

155

I will now go back to my child hood experiences which I view are relevant.
I was born in the Netherlands also known as Holland, albeit there are 2 provinces Noord Holland
and Zuid Holland, besides other provinces. No, I was not that little boy who had his finder stuck
in the dyke to prevent flooding. Anyhow, I used to collect stamps as a little boy and asked my
father who this man in a suit was on post stamps. My dad explained to me his name was
President Soekarno of the Republic of Indonesia. Well as most children do they believe what
their father are telling them. My dad explained to me that after WWII the Dutch were even worse
in killing, and this resulted that in the West Indies there was a uprise as there was also a 30 year
war by Ache, and well the Republic of Indonesia was created because the people wanted the
killing to be stopped and have their freedoms. From what my dad explained to me what is now
the Republic of Indonesia was previously under Dutch control. Actually, I learned at primary
school then also that it used to be under Dutch control, just that the killing bit was left off. At
least they seemed to back up my dad that what is known as the Republic of Indonesia was
previously under Dutch control.
As the Republic of Indonesia was to my understanding created some time after WWII then it
appears to me that the Framers of the Constitution (see above quotations) couldnt have referred
to the Republic of Indonesia or what it was prior to this to be under British control and become
part of the Commonwealth of Australia. But I invite you to explain to me if I am drastically
wrong and merely had been brainwashed as a kid to belief that what is not the Republic of
Indonesia actually was always under British control.
And why not sent as copy to Indonesian President Mr. Iriana Joko Widodo so the president can
correct Indonesian history books and tell the Indonesians they used to be under the British not the
Dutch. And while doing so perhaps you may explain also how on earth the Republic of
Indonesia became a State within the provisions of s96 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK)?
I am aware that the High Court of Australia fancied in Sue v Hill that without any legal changes
somehow the Commonwealth of Australia became gradually an independent nation!
.

160

165

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
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
p3
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

170

175

180

185

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.
END QUOTE
.

Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)

QUOTE At 168
It is necessary, at this point, to consider whether there has been such a change in the relationship between the
United Kingdom and Australia that the former is now a foreign power. In this regard, a change in that
relationship has been noted by this Court on several occasions. Thus, for example, Barwick CJ observed in
New South Wales v The Commonwealth that "[t]he progression [of the Commonwealth] from colony to
independent nation was an inevitable progression, clearly adumbrated by the grant of such powers as the
power with respect to defence and external affairs" and the Commonwealth "in due course matured [into
independent nationhood] aided in that behalf by the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster and
its adoption."[206]
END QUOTE

Silly me as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I held that only by way of a successful (s128)

referendum the constitution could be amended and only as to the provisions of a POLITICAL
UNION but hey the unelected judges turn this around and change it from a POLITICAL
UNION between the colonies (now States) to an independent country albeit still using the same
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
.

190

195

I get it the Republic of Indonesia to become a state within the Commonwealth of Australia
was an inevitable progression and the Republic of Indonesia is no more. We just pretend they have
their own President, but really they never realised they an inevitable progression was that they
became part of the commonwealth of Australia.
And here we had spokes people for the Indonesian government at various times making clear
Australia should mind its own business and not interfere or try to interfere with Indonesian
sovereign rights. Boy, do they get a surprised that their sovereign rights are no more!
.

200

205

210

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. 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, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
.

215

220

While I am aware that ordinary countries are referred to as states and have their own sovereign
powers, this can however not apply when it comes to s96 as this only applies to States within the
framework of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). As such, I view we
can exclude the ordinary meaning of States as applicable to independent countries in this regard.
I trust that Senator George Brandis Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia may
had had sufficient education , in view he is a barrister, to know the difference and that therefore
s96 applies to States as part of the Commonwealth of Australia, and not say some state in
Europe.
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
p4
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

5
225

Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
END QUOTE

Let me explain then the following:

230

HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.

235

The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
better not be left out of the bill altogether.

240

245

250

The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
.

255

260

265

270

275

280

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. 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

In my view all and any spending not for the peace, order and good government for the
Commonwealth therefore cannot be justified as the ambit of the constitution doesnt allow to
provide foreign Aid for the good, peace and order and good government of foreign
countries when the Commonwealth cannot even do so for the States!
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
p5
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE

Considering the above do you really desire to boast about cutting back on unconstitutional so
called foreign aid while still allowing other so called Foreign aid to continue?
.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

320

325

330

335

340

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

In my view it is utter and sheer nonsense for the Commonwealth of Australia to provide loans so
the Republic of Indonesia can perhaps manage its own budget. Are Indonesians so incompetent
they need to borrow monies upon conditions the Commonwealth of Australia might set?
Why cant the Republic of Indonesia on its own borrow monies? Is it that incompetent that it
needs the commonwealth of Australia to do so? Then again, if indeed progressively the
Republic of Indonesia is no more but is a State within the Commonwealth of Australia then
surely it is entitled to pursue the provisions of s96 of the constitution.
Lets be clear about it I have writing to President Iriana Joko Widodo at various times, but so
about the Republic of Indonesia Constitution. If a person within the provisions of the Indonesian
Constitution can apply for clemency then the person can likewise pursue appeals where the
clemency request was pre-determined without proper consideration of the relevant details.
Multinational companies would certainly be worried if somehow while they are subject to
Indonesian law then would also be denied their rights within the Indonesian constitution. Where
Indonesian laws are created within the ambit of the Indonesian constitution then those affected
by it, aliens or not, are entitled to the legal principles embedded in the Indonesian constitution.
p6
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

345

350

355

360

365

7
This I view also applies to those sentenced to death by a court and having exercised their rights
within Article 14 of the Indonesian constitution to apply for clemency. By this I am not
criticising the Indonesian constitution to the contrary I seek to promote the true meaning and
application of the Indonesian constitution, including a right of review before the Majalis the
Indonesian constitution provides for.
As I always state that a law degree doesnt provide intelligence! I for one hold the view that the
Republic of Indonesia is and remains to be an independent sovereign nation and is not part and
neither appears to me to contemplate to b e a state within the Commonwealth of Australia.
Then again you may prove me wrong and produce documentation that proves the Republic of
Indonesia is no more but is now a State within the Commonwealth of Australia
Anyhow, getting back to the loan issue and s96 application, unless clear evidence exist and
not the utter and sheer nonsense of the sue v Hill kind of progressive change that
somehow the Republic of Indonesia is now a State within the Commonwealth of Australia I
hold that Senators George Brandis Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
was deceptive, misleading and in a sense could be perceived to have insulted the Republic
of Indonesia as to imply it is as a state within s96 of the constitution.
Where is the constitutional validity to lend monies to Indonesia?
QUOTE 15-2-2015 EMAIL Re Indonesia
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Prime Minister of Australia < info@pm.gov.au>
To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015, 15:21
Subject: Your message to the Prime Minister
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister at www.pm.gov.au.

370

Below is a copy for your records.

375

Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you

have supplied a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia
Post. In some cases, your message may be forwarded to other Federal Ministers
for their consideration.
This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email
as this address is not monitored.

380

385

390

395

400

If you have any problems with this service please contact the Web
Administrator through the site feedback service at
http://www.pm.gov.au/site-feedback
Submitted on Sunday, 15 February 2015 - 3:21pm
Title: Mr
First name: Gerrit
Family name: Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Email address: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Your address: 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, VIC, 3084
Subject: Where is the constitutional powers for a loan to Indonesia?
Comment:
Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too well aware that the Framers of the
Constitution refused to provide for what is now s96 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). it was however when the draft
constitution was put to a referendum it was rejected and at the subsequent
Premiers conference s96 was inserted and then the draft constitution was
approved by a subsequent referendum.
p7
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

405

410

415

S96 relates to monies to be lend to the States in case of near bankruptcy.

It is therefore clear that without s96 the Commonwealth couldn't even allow
States to borrow monies. Hence the question is then: where is the
constitutional powers for the Commonwealth to lend monies or at times give
away monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds?
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/australia-extends-loan-to-indonesia-and-australian-embassy-officialssummoned-to-meeting/story-fnh81fz8-1227219934561
QUOTE
Indonesia has not drawn down any money from the fund yet. The Treasury
document explained that the agreement was due to expire on 31 December
2014, but this has been extended to 30 June 2015 at the request of the
Indonesian Government.
END QUOTE
And

420

425

430

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/australia-extends-loan-to-indonesia-and-australian-embassy-officialssummoned-to-meeting/story-fnh81fz8-1227219934561
QUOTE
It is not clear from the document when the Treasurer agreed to the loan
extension, though the first news of it was in the National Interest
Statement released on Wednesday.
Australias $1bn contribution is part of a $5bn deal between Australia,
Japan, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, which makes the money
available to Indonesia if it is unable to fund its budget due to market
volatility.
END QUOTE
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the
Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

435

440

445

450

455

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-You are referring to paragraph (4) of clause 52?
Mr. HOLDER.-Yes.
Mr. OCONNOR.-But that money could not be spent upon any object the
Federal Parliament thought fit.
Mr. HOLDER.-I want an expression of opinion which shall be authoritative
on the point. I see that, according to the provision I have quoted, there is
power given to the Federal Parliament to borrow money on the credit of the
Commonwealth, and I say again that I do not know of any limitation of the
expenditure of that money except the limitation which would be specified in
the Loan Act authorizing the borrowing of the money. Of course, these words
cover the raising of the money for the building of railways for instance, and
in such a case the limitation would be the terms of the Loan Act. But is
there anything anywhere to prevent a Loan Act being passed by the Federal
Parliament authorizing the raising of a certain sum of money, the proceeds of
which loan might be divided according to the terms of the Act among the
states according to their needs, or upon some other principle?
Mr. GLYNN.-The first three lines of clause 52 affect that point.
Mr. ISAACS.-The money must be expended with regard to "the peace, order,
and good government of the Commonwealth," not of the states.
END QUOTE
.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

460

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p8
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

9
465

QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE

470

How on earth can we trust a treasurer who defies the true meaning and
application of the constitution and is willing to have a foreign nation
unconstitutionally borrow monies at our cost?

475

480

485

490

495

500

I trust you will show true leadership and cancel any loan agreement on the
basis no constitutional powers existed for this. It would be absurd to claim
that "external affairs" could be used because as the Framers of the
Constitution made clear all monies used must be for the "peace, order and
good government" of the Commonwealth and not of the States. As such even with
lending monies to the states the Commonwealth must ensure it is in the best
interest of the Commonwealth.
It appears that the loan was provided but not taken up at all in the years
following and this too may underline there was no need for the loan. Albeit
this is a merely issue as to the needs and doesn't circumvent the
unconstitutional basis of the loan provided nevertheless we are not some
benefactor for others to use at cost of taxpayers who are struggling to make
ends meet.
As a side issue but to consider, perhaps if Indonesia didn't execute people
but instead give them hard labour it may reduce its own cost (such as
litigation to try to stave off executions) and have prisoners saving it cost
on road works, etc.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that all and any non-annual
Departmental spending had to be separately approved by a Appropriation Bill.
Hence, no use to blame Australians about any deficit if we have all kinds of
governments (in Australia) are unconstitutionally handing out monies as if
they are Santa Clause.
I request you provide me with a detailed appropriate response so I can
publish it for my readers to consider.
Constitutionalist & Consultant

505

510

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.

Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

515

The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically
otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the
content appropriately!

520

525

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED
TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
END QUOTE EMAIL Re Indonesia

Senator George Brandis indicates not to provide legal advice, but that is not what I asked for as
what I requested, as I am entitled to, as to upon what constitutional powers the Commonwealth
of Australia lend monies to the Republic of Indonesia and/or any other country for that matter.
QUOTE 2-4-2015 reply Senator George Brandis Attorney-General
p9
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

END QUOTE 2-4-2015 reply Senator George Brandis Attorney-General

530

In my view Senagtor Georgbe brandis as Attorney-General for the commonwealth of Australia

should be clear and precise as to what he replied upon. As such, where he refers also to s96 of the
p10
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

535

11
constitution then I view I am entitled to assume he means that the Republic of Indonesia is
therefore qualified as a State within the Commonwealth of Australia to seek a loan. If Senator
George Brandis didnt intend his then he should have been clear in his personal response to me
what constitutional provision he relied upon. Then again he may never even have realised that it
is and all along was unconstitutional to loan monies to other countries and that may question his
competence as Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia.
.

540

545

It seems to be ridiculous that the Commonwealth of Australia itself so alleged by Treasurer Joe
(smoking) Hockley has a debt problem and so a budget problem then should borrow monies for
its own problems but to assist some other country to manage its finances.
Hooray, the Republic of Indonesia somehow needs the assistance of Treasurer Joe (Smoking)
Hockey who cannot even manage his own budget affairs to get through the Parliament.
Might reality be that the Republic of Indonesia could perhaps teach Treasurer Joe (smoking)
Hockey how to balance the books?
.

I look forwards to your detailed positive response.

550

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!)

(
Awaiting your response,

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

p11
7-4-2015
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 INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati