ISSUE: 20180603- Re: Absurd misuse of External Affairs powers, etc & the constitution

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

* Gerrit, what do you perceive External Affairs powers is about?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, essentially to make arrangements with other nations for the
interest and wellbeing of Australians. Let me quote the Framers of the Constitution first;
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution,
where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the
empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom,
and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties,
but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they
neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think,
ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes.
END QUOTE

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

p1 3-6-2018 © 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
 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an
annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from
special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which
we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.

Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
service.

END QUOTE

Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
. I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of the Federal Parliament are limited under the
Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no power to do anything except what is
expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

Therefore it is not for the judiciary to try to find something in the constitution by using external
matters of other countries of contemporary nature but it must interpret the powers as intended by
the Framers of the Constitution.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

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

From this it must be clear that a treaty cannot be forced against citizens. Meaning also that
causing citizens to pay for blatant abuse of power to give hundreds of millions of dollars to
foreign nations while leaving out own such as former soldiers and others homeless on the streets
is an utter scandalous conduct. And I view this is robbing the Consolidated Revenue Funds also
for unconstitutional purposes.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DOBSON.-If it was perfectly plain that a small majority was infringing the Constitution simply
in order to coerce a minority, the law should be declared invalid.
END QUOTE

p2 3-6-2018 © 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
Hansard 15-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-With all respect, no. The Governor-General in Council, as the honorable member
knows as well as any one, has to obey the law as well as every one else.
END QUOTE

As such it is totally irrelevant if the Governor-General provided Royal Assent to any bills to
cause them to become Acts as if they are beyond constitutional legislative powers then the
governor-General cannot circumvent this to make a Bill an Act in violation of the constitution,
and the purported Act remains ULTRA VIRES.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
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

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

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

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
END QUOTE

Hence, the Commonwealth cannot for example give monies to some other nation that it can use
for religious purposes! Let us be clear about it, that the Constitution was amended by referendum
to include Subsection xxiiiA:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions;
(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions,
child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical,
sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services
(but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription),
benefits to students and family allowances;
END QUOTE

It must therefore be clear that if the Commonwealth couldn’t even spend monies for education
for students in ausgtralia without first having the constitution amended to provide for this in
Subsection xxiiiA then obviously the Commonwealth cannot spend monies on education for
foreign nations either. In my view any monies to be spend by the Commonwealth is to be for
internal purposes in general. The UN (United Nations) also I view is not part of the spending
spree the commonwealth can lawfully engage in, this as our constitution specifically provides
We, the people, vote for our representatives and the UN is not elected by us. We cannot be
dictated by the UN as this kind of treaty would violate what I quoted above that the Framers of
the Constitution stated.
* Would this also apply to the so called world Order?

p3 3-6-2018 © 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
**#** Our constitution doesn’t allow for a so called World Order and I view that is why the
politicians desire to get rid of our constitution. Hence they promote a republic under the guise to
be independent but really so to say to screw us all. When did for example Malcolm Turnbull
promote a republican constitution? To my knowledge he never did. He wanted to get rid of the
queen when in charge of the republican movement but now as Prime Minister I view he is trying
to get a brown arm. What really is it costing us with the Monarchy where we are billed like
anything for the antics of the Governor-General even if he was replaced by as President?
* Are you aware of the giveaway of taxpayer’s monies by the various politicians?
**#** I am aware of some of it such as:
QUOTE https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/07/gillard/
Cheque Mates: Gillard, Bishop & Hillary — Quadrant Online quadrant.org.au
Julia Gillard lavished an unprecedented $292 million in taxpayer dollars on the Clinton-dominated Global
Partnership for Education, where she was later appointed chair. Imagine the howls if Tony Abbott had
underwritten a Bush-backed charity and saw his career similarly prosper Australian governments ...
END QUOTE

https://www.facebook.com/sheaintrightmate/
Turnbull/Bishop handed out $500M overseas aid in only 8 weeks between March and April
making Rudd/Gillard look like saints
QUOTE
25 April 2017 $110M Iraq Turnbull goo.gl/u575pn
humanitarian help

24 April 2017 $10M Yemen Bishop goo.gl/TxrqDP

humanitarian help

3 April 2017 $240M Afghanistan Turnbull goo.gl/6EUnVt

humanitarian help

22 March 2017 $40M new - The Philippines Bishop goo.gl/Looazn

$60M existing education

15 March 2017 $71.5M Myanmar Bishop goo.gl/ZMWq11

Education

8 March 2017 $65M (+$10M new) PNG and Pacific Bishop goo.gl/kbpojM
Gender Equality

1 March 2017 $120M (+$20M new) Somalia and Bishop goo.gl/2Ma6Ra

Sudan humanitarian help

1 March 2017 $5.5M Countering Bishop goo.gl/7PykZP

violent terrorism supposedly anti
-developing terror
countries
END QUOTE

* What if the Parliament passed Appropriation Bills for this give away of taxpayer’s monies to
foreign nations?
**#** As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, if it violates the constitutional limitations it
is unlawful. As such Appropriation Bills in violation of constitutional limitations are of no lawful
effect.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
p4 3-6-2018 © 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
 state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE

Just consider what does it mean “humanitarian help”? It is a vague and aloof reference that
could very well be to assist the politicians (of foreign nations) for humanitarian purposes to be
able to rot the system as our politicians are doing. Then we have “education” but not at all is
there any provision to nilly willy hand out monies to foreign nations regarding education.
Then we have the “Gender Equality” on 8 March 2017 when clearly the ABS (Australian
bureau of Statistics) did not hold a survey until in the last few months of 2017. As such, it shows
that the Federal government unconstitutionally was pushing for this. And why do we seek to
interfere in foreign nations internal political issues? Do we want other countries to interfere in
our domestic issues and dictate their doctrine upon us? Here we have that there is this issue about
Chinese influence and yet we are as I view it bribing other nations to influence them.
And then we have this “Countering violent terrorism – developing countries” “supposedly
anti terror. As I view it the terrorist are home grown and in the Parliament to cause to invade for
example unconstitutionally Iraq and We, the People, are suffering the consequences of terrorism
as result, besides our taxation used for the financial cost involved.
Just the $240 to Afghanistan is about $10 for every man, woman and child in Australia and for
what? So that people like Julie Bishop might follow the path of Julia Gillard?
If External Affairs powers had anything to do with so to say having bridges with other countries
then why were Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop, Bill Shorten, Alexander Downer and a lot more
politicians as I view it rubbishing the then Candidate Donald Trump? Here they were as I view it
conspiring to interfere in a foreign political election and well Julia Gillard even reportedly was
involved in a video for this and we ended up with a hostile USA.
If I have my way they all be paying back the monies I view they defrauded from the
Consolidated Revenue Funds.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE

* If you were in power this is what you would pursue?

**#** Absolutely. The people are entitled to the proper enforcement of the law, and if judges
refuse to do so then we have to remove them from also the bench, within the provisions of the
constitution.
QUOTE From: Levinson, Sanford V [SLevinson@law.utexas.edu]
that the focus of our attention should be on the judiciary and on reinforcing the view that the
Constitution is just terrific and needs only correct interpretation by honorable judges
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!)
p5 3-6-2018 © 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