20200125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Attorney-General - For Consultation-Religious Issues

Page 1
1
2
3 Attorney General 25-1-2020
4 For consultation
5 Email: forconsultation@ag.gov.au
6
7 SUBMISSION (DISCRIMINATION ISSUES, etc)
8
9 Sir/Madam,
10 whenever a Parliament pursues to legislate then my first issue is: What is the hidden
11 agenda?
12
13 This, as when Parliament evokes upon legislating it generally has its own unwritten agenda that
14 most persons might be unaware of.
15 .
16 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am often confronted with issues where there is absolutely no
17 doubt that the Government of the Day (State and/or Federal) is violating constitutional
18 limitations but I am also very conscious that our legal system has been so corrupted that the
19 ordinary citizen is grossly and unfairly denied the provisions of Section 76 of the
20 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
21 We have ample of politicians who have been and still are pushing for a republic. Reality is that it
22 is not per se about being a republic rather the enhance their own powers. This, as now they are
23 limited to what is constitutionally permissible, regardless this is often ignored, such as with the
24 Sports and Arts funding not being within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth to engage
25 in.
26 When we consider the anti-discrimination act provisions then it is in fact to permit certain
27 discrimination while pretending not to allow for this. Those exceptions are unconstitutional and
28 defies the very legal principles embedded in the constitution that all citizens regardless of
29 nationality are treated the same unless and until if ever at all there is within Section 51(xxvi)
30 special legislation against a certain race.
31 The Framers of the Constitution didn’t defy “race” as being some kind of DNA test result as that
32 never then existed but simply held that any minority group could be deemed to be belonging to a
33 race. Hence the references to “Afghans” was referring to those who were peddling their wares
34 not referring to their specific nationality. With the Chinese they were in the main referring to the
35 “gold miners” (gold diggers) not necessarily referring to the nationality of whomever having the
36 Chinese nationality as there is a difference between being a “Chinese” national versus a
37 “Chinese” citizen. China has a wealth of history and involves numerous groups generally
38 referred to as “races”. As such a Citizen of African heritage but born in China is a “Chinese” by
39 nationality but for many may not appear to be so but regarded as an “Afrikaner”. This means that
40 a person of such background could be subjected to discrimination not because of nationality but
41 because of the physical appearance.
42 It appears that the Commonwealth is excluding the Federal, State and other authorities from the
43 legislation and this in itself means that the legislation is unconstitutional!
44
11-10-2019 Page 1 © 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 making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 And consider the following I successfully used in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka to on 19 July 2006
2 defeat the Commonwealth and the States on compulsory voting.
3
4 Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
5 Australasian Convention)
6 QUOTE
7 Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives
8 who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected
9 by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the
10 people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to the
11 Federal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given the
12 right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take
13 from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow
14 the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that
15 right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go the length of saying
16 that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their franchise, should
17 have the opportunity of doing so.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 It refers to “if they desire to exercise their franchise” and it is beyond legislative powers of any
21 Parliament to turn the “desire” into an obligation that a person “must” vote even so objecting to
22 vote where he/she doesn’t view any candidate to be suitable to vote for. The very “Political
23 liberty” is the right not to vote. It is for the candidates to seek to get an elector to vote for
24 him/her. Where however the Parliament legislated a regime that a persons vote can be diverted
25 by preferences then the right of an elector to have his/her vote redirected and so refusing to
26 exercise the right to vote is and remains to be constitutionally entitlement of the elector to do so.
27
28 Let us use an example.
29 I am Dutch born and say that the candidates for the election all are pursuing that all Dutch born
30 persons, regardless of their current nationality should be deported. I as an elector obviously will
31 decline/refuse to vote for those candidates. The Parliament cannot force me to vote for them and
32 then afterwards claim I vote for that candidate to implement the deportation. My right is
33 precisely that a “right” and cannot be converted to an obligation where I desire not to exercise
34 that right.
35 If I have a right to walk along the footpath but decide not to do so but to instead drive a motor
36 vehicle then the parliament cannot force me to nevertheless walk on a footpath. If I do not want
37 to go anywhere and just stay home then that is my right as I cannot be forced to walk along the
38 footpath if I do not desire to do so. It is only if I jaywalk that the parliament can deal with that.
39 This as once I exercise my right to walk then I can be held accountable to follow prescribed road
40 rules. Likewise if I decide to vote then I am obligated to follow the rules how to exercise that
41 right but if I desire not to vote then there can be no obligation to nevertheless do so.
42
43 ADDRESS TO THE COURT
44 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
45 QUOTE
46
47 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
48 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No.
49 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
50
51 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
52 prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it
53 being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the
54 words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to
55 formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.

Page 3
1 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is
2 contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose
4 conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
5 based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those
6 whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
7 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of
8 exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely,
9 should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its
10 coverage. Pp. 361-367.
11
12 And;
13
14 http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
15
16 Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
17 Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
18 support materials provided in the following link:
19
20 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
21
22 Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a
23 recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not
24 require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
25 exemption to be challenged.
26
27 And
28 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.
29 You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to
30 submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do
31 not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
32 And
33 Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the
34 law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are
35 betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
36
37 What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be
38 as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular
39 religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under
40 the “religious objection” Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required
41 to be a religious person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH
42 v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious objection” applies as
43 much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to
44 vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Compulsory voting, as I successfully appealed in both cases, are a gross
48 unconstitutional/unlawful requirement and hence cannot be enforced. No person can be
49 convicted upon a purported crime that is unconstitutional.
50 The right to exercise once constitutional rights cannot be used to convict a person as a criminal.
51 .
52 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
53 into a crime.”
54 Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
55 exercise of constitutional rights.”
56 Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946. We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the
57 Constitution itself answers our question Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the
58 American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
59 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are
60 involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."

Page 4
1 Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

2 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates
3 no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
4 Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
5 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
6 Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
7 "The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would
8 be a denial of due process of law".
9 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
10 Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that
11 Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of
12 treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war
13 against the Constitution without violating his undertaking
14 to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
15 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
16 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
17 Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the
18 law under which he presumes to act."
19 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
20 "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
21 supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that
22 courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme
23 law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but
24 those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and
25 practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
26 states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or
27 immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due
28 process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
29 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
30 Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his
31 person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge
32 loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or
33 effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative
34 of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is
35 in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the
36 consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from
37 responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
38 Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42
39 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
40 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
41 "No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."
42 Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
43 "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in
44 the right (liberty) with impunity."
45
46 Let us for a moment consider how Australia Post is grossly discrimination with using different
47 postal rates pending what a citizen is paying rather then a “uniform” postal service as the
48 Framers of the Constitution desired to be applicable.
49 .
50 The Framers clearly wanted to get rid of the discrimination based upon distance of mail
51 deliveries and sought a “uniform” postal charge. Yet, more than 119 years later we have
52 precisely the discriminatory postal service established and ongoing that applies the same system
53 as prior to federation. In fact when I receive time and time again mail articles after about 14 days
54 having been sent via Australia Post from places such as the next suburb Heidelberg to Viewbank
55 then surely this underlines how absurd the system is now applied.
56
57 I now had to cancel certain Australian Post delivery services and request mail to be sent via
58 email as bills would arrive past due date. This is the discrimination that is applied by the Federal
59 government as after all it owns Australia Post.
Page 5
2 Australasian Convention),
3 QUOTE
4 Mr. DEAKIN: Within or without State boundaries. How can it be said that South Australia is more
5 competent to administer the postal affairs of its Northern Territory than they would be administered from a
6 central capital? Or how can it be said that the European mails for the extreme west country of New South
7 Wales could not be better dealt with by the use of railways and means of transport through South Australia?
8 Looking at the postal and telegraphic business of the continent of Australia from a purely business
9 aspect, from the practical side of affairs, it appears to me that we are more likely to have satisfactory
10 and complete communication if it be regarded as one whole and worked from the most convenient
11 centres, without regard to State limitations. I say in answer to Mr. Holder that his illustration in
12 regard to Western Australia proves nothing if we may rely upon American experience. If there has
13 been one great federal success it has been the American post office, and if there is one regret in their
14 politics it is that the American telegraphic service is not also in the hands of the Government. The
15 telegraphic service is in private hands, and the regret is widespread. I can say, from a short experience of
16 some of the least settled and most distant territories of the West of the United States, that the postal
17 communication there is much more complete than I have been accustomed to find in outlying districts of
18 these colonies under their present State management. The National Government at Washington, 3,000 miles
19 away, separated by a whole continent, has proved itself more liberal in its treatment of the people of the Far
20 West than have the Governments of Australia proved themselves in regard to our back block settlements. In
21 America the post office has been a great administrative, financial, and popular success; and any man who
22 would propose to-day to hand that service over to other than to State administration would find that his
23 proposition was short-lived. We may have greater difficulties to surmount than they have, but there is no
24 reason why the Commonwealth of Australia should not also achieve a conspicuous success in this direction.
25 The arguments used by my hon. friend Mr. Barton with regard to the difficulties arising from a divided
26 control of the telegraph wires appear to be conclusive. It would be almost impossible to make arrangements
27 as perfect and as economical for either postal or telegraphic services [start page 771] within Australia if you
28 retain State boundaries, and it will certainly be more difficult to make arrangements for the extra-Australian
29 services if you are called upon to consider State claims and demands, instead of only considering the real
30 practical wants of the localities immediately concerned. It appears to me a desirable thing as a matter of
31 practical business to transfer both of the services to which I have alluded to the Federal Government. We
32 shall not place too great a burden on the federal authority, and the whole population will be better
33 served than they now are or than remote districts can be by State authority. Placing the means of
34 communication in the hands of the Federal Government will probably permit of that universal
35 reduction of postage and cable rates which is one of the first demands of the commercial interest
36 throughout Australia. The experience of our own colony is that the present cable rates are almost
37 prohibitive. but by a satisfactory combination of the cable and postal services, with unity of
38 administration, we shall be able to secure an immediate reduction in those charges, as well as in postal
39 rates, and give the people of Australia better services than those they now possess.
40 Sir PHILIP FYSH: Every postal conference that has been held for years past has tendered a report
41 suggesting that the postal and telegraphic services should be federated. Year by year conferences are
42 necessary in order to keep ourselves in touch with what is going on and to keep pace with development. The
43 clause of the 1891 Bill, transferring the control of post and telegraph offices, was largely for the reason
44 that the losses amounting to £200,000 per annum, incurred by some States were for the benefit of the
45 whole, and therefore should be of federal concern. That state of accounts has since altered, and South
46 Australia, in 1891 the chief loser, and Tasmania, also an important loser, have both since secured
47 profit in these departments, but much services as posts and telegraphs have by means of the postal
48 conferences of postmasters annually, and by their reports, sought to establish uniformity, and tended
49 strongly to support this federal purpose. The cost of cable subsidies has already been divided
50 intercolonially, and the completion of federal services will tend to support the "United Australia"
51 purpose of the people. Nothing has a greater tendency to perfect your union than one postage stamp
52 for Australasia. Uniform postal rate is also desirable; whereas in Tasmania, in a given radius from the
53 General Post Office, the rate is one penny, in South Australia and Victoria twopence is uniform, whether
54 across the street or to the end of their territorial limit. Mr. Deakin's reference to extra-colonial or over-sea
55 services will remind representatives of the fact that the federal authority will, if only oversea services are of
56 federal concern, as Mr. Holder suggests, pay the contractors, and that the revenue will be collected by the
57 local or State authorities. The details of departmental works, such as the pay of postmasters and opening new
58 offices in outlying districts, will by federal authority be settled upon the recommendations of the Local or
59 State Secretary of the department in the Federation. To be compelled at the present moment to supply
60 ourselves with Adelaide stamps, or if you are travelling in Tasmania with Tasmanian stamps, if; always
Page 6
1 inconvenient to that section of the public which is of a migratory character. We have also to consider that
2 as far as our revenues are concerned they come in unequal proportions from the various contributors.
3 In Tasmania we give in the city and suburbs the advantage of a penny service; but here, and I think in
4 Victoria also, they have the same rate in the city and suburbs as throughout their territory, and I think
5 if the federal spirit is to be generated by a Constitution of this kind, and if we wish to continue the
6 belief that we are one people, we will do much in, this direction by providing a uni- [start page 772]
7 form postal and telegraphic service. Under these circumstances our various conferences have invariably
8 tended in this direction, and hence during the last few years we have pooled all our cable subsidies. It was
9 only natural that we should so pool them, as we in Tasmania were bearing more than our share, and we
10 recognise that South Australia was giving to the people of Australia a large amount of work for which she
11 was inadequately recompensed. We have reversed the position, and we are no longer losing by the postal
12 service as we were in 1891. South Australia and Tasmania have altered their positions, but that is no reason
13 that the remainder, now that our total loss has been reduced to about £80,000, should not pool the service
14 which brings in contact every home throughout Australia. Then you have the money order system also, under
15 which commission is charged in each colony, but if it were pooled, we would be able to distribute the money
16 of a majority of our people at a lower rate than we do at the present time, which is within the scope of some
17 future Treasurer or postmaster to propose. This advantage can be better secured to the people generally by
18 Federation than it otherwise can be, and therefore I hope that we will respect the opinion of 1891.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 We have the nonsense for example that Australia Post motor bikes and soon other 3 wheel
22 vehicles can use footpaths in violation to our constitution. For sure, there is no issue that special
23 parking provisions/exclusions are provided for Australian Postal vans to collect/deliver mail
24 articles but it is another thing that footpaths are being terrorised by Australian Post motorbikes as
25 clearly the delivery of mail can be done observing ordinary State road provisions.
26 Why indeed should my advance age wife have to be scared to even walk on the footpath that
27 some Australia Post motor bike may his her and then she could be severely injured if not killed?
28 .
29 I have already mail boxed on top of my car port and when asked by Australia Post managers why
30 I had this I (Jokingly) commented just in case Australia Post commences to deliver via
31 helicopter. Actually I use them as bird cages.
32
33 Let us consider what the Framers of the Constitution held as some issues regarding religion
34 issues.
35
36 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
38 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
39 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and
40 the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined
41 in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of
42 the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
43 END QUOTE
44 And
45 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
46 QUOTE
47 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
48 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
49 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
50 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
51 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
52 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
53 END QUOTE
54 And
56 QUOTE
57 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
58 the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
Page 7
1 it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
2 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
3 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
4 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
5 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
6 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
7 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
8 will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
9 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
10 of the Commonwealth.
11 END QUOTE
12 .
13 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
14 QUOTE
15 Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
16 amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
17 free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
18 be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
19 another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
20 devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
21 Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
22 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
23 of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
24 But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
25 character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
26 END QUOTE
27 Again:
28 QUOTE
29 But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
30 character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 As such, where the Commonwealth can legitimately legislate as to certain issues such as a
34 person not being permitted to own and use a (say) anti tank weapon when not in the employment
35 of the Commonwealth armed service and only if for military usage then any person (regardless
36 of claiming to have a religious/non religious view to claim entitlement to own sand use such a
37 anti tank weapon the Commonwealth legitimately can legislate and not violate S116 of the
38 constitution.
39
40 ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
41 makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
42
43 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
44 remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
45 borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
46 "
47 Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
48
49 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
50 27 (17 June 1999)
51 QUOTE
52 Constitutional interpretation

Page 8
1 1.The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
2 intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs,
3 hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states
4 of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The
5 intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the
6 historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional
7 interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin
8 argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
9 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

10 available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an
11 exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not
12 mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means
13 trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - someone, or a
14 social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
15 particular way on a particular occasion."
16 END QUOTE
17 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by
18 s73 of the Constitution.
19 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
20
21 It is very important that when one looks at the powers of any Parliament to legislate one
22 considers the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
23 When it comes to “marriages” then there can be no doubt that this related to a bond between a
24 “and” and a “woman”.
25 .
28 QUOTE
29 The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given
30 the most sacred of all relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it
31 follows, as a matter of course, that we must do this. Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the
32 commonwealth. The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a uniform law.
33 Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
34 The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is
35 a corollary as far as marriage is concerned.
36 [start page 1085]
37 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
38 The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the
39 parent over the child!
40 END QUOTE
41
42 HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]
43 QUOTE
44 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible by familiar
45 analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds of some hon. members, be
46 thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-though the suggestion or the expression of the
47 analogy may in some quarters create a smile-yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of
48 federal government, we ought, as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which
49 prevails in a model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband represents the
50 entire household.
Page 9
1 An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!
2 An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!
3 Mr. RUTLEDGE: The husband is supposed, in the natural order of things, to be the representative of the
4 entire household but, though he is a representative of the entire household, we know that the wife also plays a
5 very important part in the government of that household. The wife comes very near to all those smaller
6 constituent elements of the family circle, which may, perhaps, by analogy be likened to the great family of
7 states which will exist in connection with this great federal constitution.
8 Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!
9 Mr. RUTLEDGE: It is the wife that knows all about the particular interests which affect all the members
10 of the family group: they come to her with their particular ideas, and they look to her for the expression of
11 their ideas and for the enforcement of their particular claims.
12 Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!
13 Mr. RUTLEDGE: With regard to that interjection, I say that he is a wise man who, being the head of a
14 household, puts all his financial projects into the crucible of the sagacious mind of his wife, far more
15 enlightened, far more discriminating than his own.
16 Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!
17 Mr. RUTLEDGE: I say yes, with the power of veto. In this community many a man owes a great deal
18 to the advice of his wife and the veto which she has put upon his proposals. We know that those strong
19 headed men who think that all wisdom is embodied in themselves, who do not take their wives into their
20 confidence, who do not consult their wives as to some particular speculation on which they desire to embark,
21 are the men who very frequently come to grief. But the men who do take, their wives into their confidence in
22 this way, and who do permit them to have a considerable voice in the management of family affairs, even to
23 putting a veto upon their own impulsive tendencies in regard to financial proposals, are the men who go on
24 very safe lines. No analogy is perfect; every analogy will break down when you come to some particular
25 modes of applying it; but I do regard a great family of states, governed by a house of representatives and a
26 senate, as bearing a very considerable analogy to the constitution of a family; and I say the same rule which
27 prevails in the one ought to prevail in the other.
28 Sir THOMAS McILWRAITH: The wife initiates most of the money bills there!
29 Mr. RUTLEDGE: The wives do initiate a great many of the money bills, and I appeal to the experience of
30 a great many hon. gentlemen to know whether they have not been saved very frequently from financial
31 mistakes by consulting their wives in regard to important steps which they proposed to take in the very
32 serious affairs. of life.
33 END QUOTE
34
35 (Writers note; See also 9 March 1891 Page 151 & 152)
36
37 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
38 QUOTE
39 More to the same effect appears in the debates, which were long and thorough and
40 contain nothing to the contrary. While the general rule precludes the use of these debates to
41 explain the meaning of the words of the statute, they may be considered as reflecting light
42 upon its general purposes and the evils which it sought to remedy. Federal Trade
43 Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 650 , 51 S.Ct. 587, 79 A.L.R. 1191
44 END QUOTE
45
48 QUOTE
49 Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the
50 Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.

Page 10
1 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section, which
2 puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty.
3 Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words equivalent to
4 "uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has
5 been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated income tax case
6 went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people according to numbers, and this point
7 was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of
8 Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in
9 form" throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and
10 prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a
11 land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of the
12 Commonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to move-
13 That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following words
14 be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods passing from
15 one state to another."
16 I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-trade among
17 the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another would be clearly
18 invalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not to say
19 anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently provided for,
20 and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax which would make a
21 difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another state, and to prevent anything
22 which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to another. I beg to move-
23 That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view to
24 inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between
25 persons or things passing from one state to another."
26 The amendment was agreed to.
27 END QUOTE
28
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
33 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
34 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
35 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
36 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 This clearly (as do many other statements the Framers of the Constitution made) limit marriage
40 to being between a “man” and a “woman”. Hence the so called SSM (Same Sex Marriage) is
41 beyond the legislative powers of then Commonwealth of Australia and any so called SSM
42 marriage is and remains to be invalid in law.
43 .
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
47 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
48 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
49 [start page 2004]
50 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
51 END QUOTE
52
55 QUOTE
56 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
57 will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
Page 11
1 the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
2 be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
3 which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
4 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
5 parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Take for example the issue of abortion which I consider to be nothing less than murder. I accept
9 that in certain exceptional circumstances the medical profession may be faced with a dilemma to
10 seek to safe the life of the unborn child and/or the mother. In my view no one in his/her right
11 mind would argue against the medical team to determine what in each such particular
12 circumstances might be more appropriate to seek to save the life of one of them if both cannot be
13 saved. However, I do not accept that somehow merely because a woman willingly engaged in a
14 sexual act knowing the risk of becoming pregnant then she can abort the unborn baby upon her
15 wimps. Where a male can be held legally liable for any cost associated with the pregnancy then
16 this implies the male has a right also to the issue of the unborn child’s life. If the mother doesn’t
17 want the child she can let the father have it or adopt it out but to murder the unborn child in my
18 view is contrary to the implied rights of the biological father also.
19 One of my daughters, more than 2 decades ago, was pressured to have an abortion, which I only
20 discovered afterwards when I was called to the hospital where she ended up suspected to die
21 from the abortion. Well, my daughter gave me the understanding that the biological father had
22 claimed that in his religion he was not allowed to have a child before marriage. I made clear to
23 my daughter that she was conned as rather there are religions that do not permit to have sex
24 before marriage. Still, her ability to conceive children no longer existed all because this (former)
25 boyfriend didn’t want to end up having to pay toward the unborn child, etc.
26 It never was nor could be considered to be the woman’s right to decide about her body to abort a
27 child. A woman who voluntarily engage in a sex act by this gives consent to become pregnant
28 and as such waives her rights to be sole decision maker if she becomes pregnant what is to
29 eventuate. She can maintain her sole rights by avoiding becoming pregnant!
30
31 Lets try to be simplistic:
32 I am using my motor vehicle and accept to drive a friend who I know is a smoker from point A
33 to point B. The friend is smoking heavily but I by having accepted the friend for a ride has to
34 accept this unless I specifically denied the friend to smoke while being driven from point A to
35 point B. Now years later I discover to have some lung cancer and the question then is can I sue
36 my friend on the basis that his smoking caused me to be a passive smoker? I do not think so
37 because I accepted him to smoke during the travelling. I could have denied any smoking if I
38 really had insisted on this.
39 The same with a woman. She can simply refuse to have sexual intercourse if she doesn’t want to
40 end up pregnant but if she accepts intercourse well aware it could possibly, but doesn’t have to,
41 result in a pregnancy then she no longer can claim the right about her own body when she
42 willingly took the risk to become pregnant. She has waived her rights as such and the unborn
43 child is not both a part of the mother and the biological father. It is then absurd even ridiculous to
44 hold that the mother can abort the child merely because she might no longer desire the child from
45 perhaps her former boyfriend. Once a life is created then she loses all her self-determination until
46 the child is born. It is also nonsense the biological father can be forced to pay for about the entire
47 pregnancy period relating to cost of the unborn child and then the mother upon her wimps can
48 murder the child on the last minute or even after birth, as reportedly eventuated at so called
49 abortions.
50

Page 12
1 I am born of Jewish blood and baptised also Protestant but do not practice any particular
2 religious doctrine. I am entitled to speak up as this is my right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH
3 enshrined in the constitution.
4 It is not for the High Court of Australia to declare if there is some FREEDOM OF SPEECH
5 this because the Framers of the Constitution embedded it in the constitution as a legal principle!
6
7 Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
9 QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
10 Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
11 secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
12 possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
13 no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
14 in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
15 There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
16 country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
17 by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
18 we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
19 in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
20 END QUOTE
21
22 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
24 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
25 Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
26 through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
27 of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
28 act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
29 Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
30 freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
31 representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way
32 of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive
33 than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to
34 protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of
35 interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the
36 country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There
37 is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought
38 to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not
39 providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain,
40 and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free
41 Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the
42 provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have
43 provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all
44 other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
45 Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
46 provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
47 people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
48 its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but
49 acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in
50 the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to
51 be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose
52 of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament
53 of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to
54 serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any
55 Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have
56 that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
57 which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
58 creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
59 preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional

Page 13
1 action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
2 Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 It is therefore clear that the Framers of the constitution referred to the US Constitution and its
6 then 14 Amendments that our freedoms were at the very least equal to that of a US citizen.
7
8 We then have to consider the following:
9
11 QUOTE
12 Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and
13 indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the
14 theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what
15 we can to provide against it.
16 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I want if I can to recommend the Commonwealth Bill and get it carried. But
17 why should we be faced with this difficulty? You have put in the preamble a religious recital which is not in
18 the Constitution of the United States of America, but you have not put in the safeguard against religious
19 intolerance which they have there. I ask honorable members how I shall face that difficulty? There is a grave
20 suspicion evidenced by what I said that there were 36,000 distinct signatures upon this very point. I do not
21 think it is too much for me to say that we ought to reassure those persons. They may be wrong. It may be
22 right, as my friend (Mr. Barton) says, that there is no power by implication in the Commonwealth to pass this
23 law. It may be right as he says, that the Commonwealth ought to have the power. But I only say that it is a
24 state matter, and it should be left to the states. My honorable friend (Mr. Fraser), with all respect to him,
25 shows the current ignorance on this matter because he will not understand that the state, if my proposal is
26 carried, will have the same power as it has now to stop any theatrical performances on Sunday.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 What this means is not that the States legislate as to religion but that its State legislative powers
30 to determine working hours cannot be denied. As such States could prohibit opening of
31 businesses (as it then was) on a p[articular day without it being deemed a violation of S116 of
32 the constitution.
33 .
34 While the State of Victoria purportedly transferred its legislative powers as to industrial relations
35 reality is that this cannot be done without a State Referendum. S123 makes clear that a State
36 referendum is required to approve any transfer of legislative powers by a State.
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
41 Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.
42 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

43 Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
44 the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
45 same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
46 maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
47 Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
48 weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
49 consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
50 be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
51 END QUOTE
52
54 QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

Page 14
1 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
2 the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
3 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
4 constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
5 several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
6 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
7 practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
8 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
9 that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
10 assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
11 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
12 conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
13 such authority.
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE
18 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
19 sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
20 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present
21 are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the
22 power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
23 sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
24 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
25 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
26 one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
27 with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
28 which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
29 of the constitution.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 HANSARD 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention
33 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
34 They both desire to retain for their Several States for all time the privilege of controlling industrial
35 disputes within their own borders.
36 END QUOTE
37 .
38 HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention
39 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
40 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
41 England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
42 cannot get behind it.
43 END QUOTE
44 .
46 QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
47 The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
48 END QUOTE
49 And
51 QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
52 We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That
53 would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
54 END QUOTE
55 And
57 QUOTE
58 Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place
59 where the contract was made.
60 END QUOTE
61 And
Page 15

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
4 are intimately allied to this question.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 As such, without any State Referendum no Ss51(xxxvii) referendum can succeed. Ss51(xxxvii)
8 merely authorised the Commonwealth to accept a reference of legislative powers of a State but is
9 not the vehicle for the States to do so as this is within S123 of the constitution.
10
13 QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:
14 Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable
15 that when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should
16 be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Clearly this underlines that “marriages” are that being a “civil contract” and as such any so
20 called “religious marriage” is not within the Commonwealth’s legislative powers to deal with.
21 The Commonwealth can rightfully have the courts to declare a particular marriage being at an
22 end, where the parties cannot reconcile regarding certain issues in conflict. It can however not
23 claim that it can force two people to become married. It is essentially that the Courts can declare
24 a particular contract void, etc, even between 2 businesses but it cannot force the 2 parties
25 (businesses) to contract towards each other.
26
27 It also means that a purported “religious marriage” involving a minor (under age person not able
28 to give consent) in violation of Commonwealth law cannot override legal requirements.
29
30 With homosexuals and others who in violation of biological rules claim to be married , etc,
31 cannot be sanctioned to be so regardless if purported laws provide for it, this because the concept
32 of a “marriage” is clearly embedded in the constitution to be that of a “man” and a “woman”.
33 With the homosexual and others kind of groups claiming to be of a certain gender other then
34 being a “wife” and/or “woman or man and/or male then their self claimed categories are outside
35 the meaning of the constitution to be deemed to be a “marriage”. Any legislation by the
36 Commonwealth to purport there is a so called SSM marriage (Same Sex marriage) when in fact
37 it involved people claiming to be if different genders underlines the gross absurdity that has
38 evolved with politicians being more concerned about their own political futures then to maintain
39 a steady as it goes position (STATUS QUO) to act within the confines of the constitution.
40
41 Regardless if (see above) I decline to walk along a footpath but decides to stay at home likewise
42 if I do not desire to accept homosexuality then that is my right. I have the FREEDOM OF
43 SPEECH to express my views in that regard. We have ongoing litigation in Burns v Abbott and
44 Burns v Gaynor and Burns versus a host of other persons all about someone claiming to be
45 offended that someone may object to homosexuality. It is their right to do so and express
46 themselves in that regard. It is their constitutional right to do so.
47 .
48 As I indicated above industrial relations are within the confines of the State where it relates to
49 non-Commonwealth territories and as such I view it is beyond the Commonwealth to legislate.
50 .
51 We have a Parliament obsessed with legislating rather than to act sensible. A clear example is
52 that as an Administrator of an Estate I have banks letting me know that by the provisions of the
53 Privacy Act they cannot disclose matters. This, even so the Privacy Act relates to a “natural
Page 16
1 person” and not “deceased person”. So in the meantime they refuse to quarantine the accounts
2 from identity theft and fraudulent withdrawals and even seek payment for such credit card
3 withdrawals (eventuated by identity theft and fraudulent withdrawals after the death of the
4 deceased). As such the banks are in fact aiding and abetting criminal conduct and this by
5 allowing a person or persons to continue identity theft and/or fraudulent withdrawals. And this
6 regarding a “deceased person” who I suspect was the subject of a homicide for his Estate. This is
7 a real issue I view parliament ought to address and not some purported anti-discrimination law
8 that in itself is unconstitutional!
9
11 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
12 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
13 states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the
14 commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised
15 only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject
16 to the provisions of this constitution.
17 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
18 several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
19 obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
20 enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
21 opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
22 Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
23 commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of
24 the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
25 requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to
26 a parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of
27 the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the
28 commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they
29 exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to
30 make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when
31 the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
32 the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature
33 chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with
34 the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some
35 exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people
36 of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the
37 general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the
38 aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
39 END QUOTE
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
44 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
45 community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
46 the aboriginal race in any state.
47 Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
48 understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
49 community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
50 Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
51 do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
52 see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
53 particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
54 Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
55 are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do

Page 17
1 not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
2 confines of Victoria at all.
3 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
4 Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
5 class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
6 do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended
7 to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not
8 think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
9 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
10 the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
11 with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
12 existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
13 made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
14 Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
15 that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
16 will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
17 laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
18 should not have power to devise such laws.
19 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
20 Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
21 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
22 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
23 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
24 END QUOTE
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
29 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
35 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
36 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

37 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
38 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
39 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
40 END QUOTE
41
43 QUOTE
44 My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
45 pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
46 from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
47 the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 It is clear that Ss51(xxvi) was designed against “generally called inferior races ” and “includes a
51 certain degree of coloured immigration” and “so that all those of the races who come into the community

Page 18
1 after the establishment of the Commonwealth will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their
2 immigration, but will remain subject to any laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them”
3 and how on earth then this subsection could have been amended to include “Aboriginals” is
4 beyond me.
5
6 Now before we have parliamentarians voting on any further nonsense of legislation when it
7 should be clear that the so called Anti discrimination laws prohibited within Ss51(xxvi) cannot
8 be justified within “External Affiars” they better first get some good and indeed proper education
9 to understand/comprehend what the constitution is about.
10
11 Posted 22-1-2020 11:22
12 QUOTE POST
13 As I stated way back on 24 September 2015:
14
15 It appears to me the republicans under Malcolm Turnbull are unconstitutionally interfering
16 with our rights.
17
18 The document can be downloaded from:
19
20 https://www.scribd.com/doc/282489521/20150924-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-
21 Hlavka-Re-the-Hidden-Danger-Regarding-Interfering-With-Religious-Education-Aboriginal-
22 History
23
24 QUOTE
25 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have my concerns as to where our Federal Government is
26 heading, and in particularly its ongoing unconstitutional conduct. Constitutionally the
27 Commonwealth of Australia has no legislative powers as to interfere with education, nor to fund
28 Arts, Sports, etc.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 As such what Anne Twomey now claims merely underlines what I have stated many years
32 ago.
33
35 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
36 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
37 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
38 that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
39 Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
40 any private person would be.
41 END QUOTE
42
43 Let us not ignore:
44
46 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
47 The resolutions conclude:
48 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
49 appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
50 upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
51 majority.
52 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
53 similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as

Page 19
1 possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
2 advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
3 lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
4 gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
5 END QUOTE
6
8 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
9 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
10 own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
11 Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
12 END QUOTE
13 .
14 And
15
17 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
18 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
19 own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
20 Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
21 END QUOTE
22 .
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
26 END QUOTE
27 .
29 QUOTE
30 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
31 we will have to wipe it out."
32 END QUOTE
33
34 Well if Ministers are supposed to be “constitutional advisers” but turn out not to
35 understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution then where they
36 act unconstitutionally they must accept the legal consequences.
37
38 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-21/bridget-mckenzie-didnt-have-power-in-sports-
39 grants-says-twomey/11885018
40
41 Bridget McKenzie didn't have legal power over sports grants, law expert Anne Twomey says
42 END QUOTE POST
43
44 As I indicated above any Commonwealth legislation that is not “UNIFORM” is
45 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Hence, any legislation that excludes the Commonwealth and/or one
46 or more States would be unconstitutional as it is not “UNIFORM”.
47
49 QUOTE
50 Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
51 establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
52 be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
53 postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
54 competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
55 contradiction of federal legislation?
56 Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

Page 20
1 Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
2 exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
3 come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
4 legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
5 concurrent legislation that power does not cease?
6 Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
7 members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
8 sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
9 able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
10 legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
11 maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
12 recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
13 thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
14 for all.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 So much to its all but in my view the above ought to make it clear that the proposed
18 amendments also will be unconstitutional.
19
20 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
21 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
22 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

23 (Our name is our motto!)


20200125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Attorney-General - For Consultation-Religious Issues

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

20200125-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Attorney-General - For Consultation-Religious Issues

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Page 1

11-10-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-10-2019 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-10-2019 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

21 Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.

11-10-2019 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9 "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence

33 Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!

36 [start page 1085]

1 An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!

2 An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!

8 Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!

12 Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!

16 Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!

11-10-2019 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-10-2019 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-10-2019 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

42 Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

11-10-2019 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

11-10-2019 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?

19 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

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

36 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

11-10-2019 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-10-2019 Page 18 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

56 Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.

11-10-2019 Page 19 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

22 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

11-10-2019 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen