z3

ISSUE: 20190120- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 27-FSRC Royal Commission

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

* Gerrit, that was some submission to the FSRC and so brief compared to your ordinary
extensive writings.
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I am quoting it below. The issue is that we have Members of
Parliament big time defrauding the Consolidated Revenue Funds and well if I can help it I would
lock them up and deny them ever again to be a Member of Parliament, as to teach others also that
you are to be a Member of Parliament to serve the people and not your for own selfish
enrichment
* Have you read the draft report of the FSRC?
**#** I have not but if the FSRC considers my supplement no 5 appropriately it may just amend
its report to include the issue about the Inter-State Commission. Financial Institutions such as
Superannuation Funds Manager I view should fall within Trade and Commerce and be subjected
to the Inter-State Commission expertise overview. People may not grasp it but while the
Legislature (Parliament) the Executives (Government) and the Judicature (Judiciary) all have the
Monarch as its head this is not as such implied to be with the Inter-State Commission this even
so it is the creation of the constitution as ifs the legislature, the executives and the judicature. The
only power the Government of the day has over the Inter-State Commission is to appoint the
person who is heading it. The legislature can obviously provide for legislation within which the
Inter-State Commission operates such as for Trade and Commerce and other additional powers
granted by the Parliament but it cannot diminish the Inter-State Commissions powers in regard of
Trade and Commerce. Meaning that no matter what legislation exist any trading or commercial
actor who is pursued by the ACCC can tell it to take a hike and not bother it. The Court decisions
will be NULL AND VOID this because where the ACCC has no powers where the legislation is
unconstitutional then there exist neither any powers for the courts to adjudicate.
.
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may

p1 20-1-2019 © 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
 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.

END QUOTE

And the same with Premier Daniel Andrews making a reported $9 billion profit from leasing out
the Port of Melbourne. It is a form of taxation (tax revenue) prohibited by Section 92 of the
constitution, this as it is not a harbor associated cost. States are not to make a profit from harbors
but merely charge for the actual cost of it. Likewise other state governments doing the same.
They are violating the constitutional prohibitions and I view they should be put in prison. After
all when politicians show a disregard for the principle law the constitution how then can you
expect ordinary citizen to show respect for the rule of law?

Hansard 21-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-Yes, that would be the only difference, and the question is whether it is worth while to
make it operate in that way, because it may be taken that there is in the Constitution, without the latter part
of clause 95, an implication that any law or regulation of commerce or revenue having the effect of
derogating [start page 1261] from freedom of trade or commerce between the states shall be null and void.

END QUOTE

* Well I think your submission is clear about what you are on about.
**#** I will quote it now.
QUOTE
Royal Commission FCR
19-1-2019
FSRCenquiries@royalcommission.gov.au.
SUBMISSION -Supplement 5
(NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION)
Sir,
regardless what legislation might have been enacted by the federal parliament as to a Royal
Commission it should be understood that any Royal Commission must be bound to observe
constitutional limitations/requirements.
.
Section 101 of the constitutions specifically demands that there shall be an Inter-State
commission and its purpose is to deal with Trade and Commerce. It is not subject to the
directions of any Minister this as the Inter-State Commission is created by the constitution itself.

1. The Legislators
2 The Executives
3. The judicature
4. The Inter-State Commission.
.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Inter-State Commissions decision as final
and binding unless upon an ERROR OF LAW an appeal is made to the High Court of Australia.
The Inter-State Commission is not and never was intended to be a court, as I understand was
attempted in about 1975 to provide it with such powers.
.

p2 20-1-2019 © 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
Much is being rumoured about the ACCC and other Authorities that they failed to act
appropriately but one has to consider that if the banks and others fall within the definition of
Trade and Commerce than the (constitutional) legal power falls within that of the Inter-State
Commission to deal with this.
As such an investigation by the ACCC for example regarding Trade and Commerce I view has
no constitutional justification, this as the ACCC is under the supervision of a Minister, and as
such could be used as a political tool.

In my view it would be utter foolish for the Royal Commission to make any recommendations
that would somehow purport that not the Inter-State Commission but the ACC or Aphra has
certain powers.
The Parliament has in my view absolutely no legislative powers to deny the Inter-State
Commission its authority and ability to deal with Trade and Commerce issues.
Any so called bail in legislation that undermines the Inter-State Commission sole jurisdiction to
deal with Trade and Commerce would in my view be and remain to be unconstitutional.

We have that the Reserve Bank of Australia may make rate decisions but it should be the Inter-
State Commission that then can apply the kind of rates that the banks could charge as a minimum
and/or maximum, etc.
.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Parliament could provide additional
jurisdiction to the Inter-State Commission apart from Trade and Commerce.
.
We currently have that the Federal Government is spending up big on nonsense of issues which
are political pork barrelling, yet most of it, such as road funding belongs within the powers of the
Inter-State Commission, this as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that for example
railway charges fell within its powers.
.
The wording SHAL BE in the constitution was deliberately inserted to ensure that there always
shall be an Inter-State Commission. However, as is well known to many persons that there
simply is about never any Inter-State Commission in existence. This however cannot then justify
for a Minister or even the Parliament to circumvent Section 101 of the constitution. The issue for
the Royal Commission therefore is to establish if banks and other financial institutions are falling
with the term Trade and Commerce and if so then it cannot make any recommendations that
would deflect from the Inter-State Commissions decision making powers

It means the many Federal Governments existing from time to time has in fact undermined the
ability of the Inter-State Commission to do its work appropriately.
.
I will give an example as to the difference between the Federal government and the Inter-State
Commission.
The Federal Government is bound to ensure that all citizens are treated equally and that all laws
are enforceable equally throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. As such the pork barrelling
of a particular state in the view of an upcoming election is unconstitutional. The for example
road funding in certain areas not equally in other areas is not within the Federal Governments
powers, albeit they nevertheless do so.
The Inter-State Commission was specifically created to divert from this. It could set rates, such
as for railways, as to what it deemed most appropriate. It could for example based on expert
advice determine that an X amount of monies was to be spend in one state but far less or more in
another state.

p3 20-1-2019 © 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
For example when we had decade ago the shipping laying in wit to unload or load outside
Queensland the Inter-State Commission could have exercised its powers to upgraded the harbor
facilities (Section 100 of the constitution powers) to seek to relieve this burden upon shipping.

Many banks and other financial institutions such as superannuation funds are investing big time
into commercial matters and as such it would be well within the powers of the Inter-State
Commission to deal with such matters as being part of Trade and Commerce.

Instead of having the now unconstitutional political decisions made to favour certain businesses
the Inter-State Commission is to be non-political. If anyone is aggrieved by a decision of the
Inter-State Commission on basis of ERROR OF LAW then the option of an appeal to the High
Court of Australia is open to them to follow. However, one cannot dispute the expertise of the
Inter-State Commission and so its decisions based on this.

The Inter-State Commission essentially is a creation of the constitution itself, and only the
commissioner who heads it is appointed by the relevant government. As like with the Federal
government and the Federal Parliament the High Court of Australia can only deal with a matter
based on ERROR OF LAW. It cannot take over (encroach) upon the political decision making
powers of either the Federal Government or the Federal Parliament and likewise it cannot
interfere with the expert decision making powers of the Inter-State Commission.
.
In my view any former judge of the High Court of Australia should be competent enough to
understand/comprehend this.

Hence, I view that the first task of the Royal Commission is to ascertain which if any parts of the
Royal Commissions investigative powers are relating to the Trade and Commerce aspect of the
Inter-State Commission and then if certain issues fall within its constitutional assigned powers
then the Royal Commission must declare this to be so.
If then the ACCC and Aprha are acting in violation of the powers of Trade and Commerce
belonging to the Inter-State Commission then I view the Royal Commission is obligated to state
this.
.
As I understand it from the Constitutional convention debates the Framers of the Constitution
made clear that the Federal Parliament could not diminish the powers of the Inter-State
Commission regarding Trade and Commerce, but could provide additional powers in other
matters also. As such any legislation that violated the supreme decision making powers of the
Inter-State Commission is unconstitutional and cannot be relied upon.
.
For what it is worth if instead of Aprha and the ACCC the Inter-State Commission had been
dealing with the financial institutions we may never have ended up with the problems that now
emerged.

What is needed is to ensure that immediately without delay an Inter-State Commissioner is

appointed so that this Commissioner can deal with experts such as in banking, etc, to get the
most appropriate outcome for all concerned.
We need to return to the organics of our constitution and we might in the process all be better off,
well perhaps not the politicians as their manipulative powers may just be severely limited.
I make it known that there is no restriction of confidentiality of the above details as they
are provided to the Royal Commission without restriction on usage and/or publication!

This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
p4 20-1-2019 © 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
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE

* It be interesting to find out if the FSRC will in fact now address this specific issue in nits final
report.
**#** Time will tell.
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 20-1-2019 © 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