20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman

Page 1
1
2
3 Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman 8-4-2020
4 Office and mailing address
5 Level 2, 570 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
6 ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au
7
8 20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman
9
10 Madam,
11 by now you too may have been aware about the Victorian Police having issued a
12 $1,652.00 fine against Hunter Reynolds albeit this appears to have been withdrawn since.
13
14 My concern is that the State of Victoria or for that any state has no police powers to restrict
15 anyone from their legal and constitutional rights of freedom of movement.
16
17 Regretfully we lack too often competent politicians, lawyers and judges to
18 understand/comprehend this.
19 .
20 I will below provide some quotations of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates for the
21 creation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of which within section
22 106 the states were created “subject to this constitution” and it should be clear that the Framers
23 of the Constitution stated:
24
25 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
26 Convention)
27 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
28
29 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is
30 intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
31 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 The Framers of the Constitution rejected that the States could invoke police powers
35
36 In 2001 I was an INDEPENDENT candidate in the federal political election but refused to vote. I
37 did so again in 2004 and in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated
38 the Commonwealth as to compulsory voting. I at times do vote when I consider there is a worthy
39 candidate to vote for, but my objection was against compulsory voting and the Court upheld both
40 appeals, which I conducted representing myself.
41
42 As such I proved in the past that to understand and comprehend what the constitution stands for
43 is critical.
44 .
8-4-2020 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 We now have allegedly some 150 PSO to run around bothering people, etc, where I view none of
2 the States, including the State of Victoria can invoke any police powers. The mere fact that in
3 error and by misconception this nevertheless is pursued cannot justify it being done.
4 .
5 While I am aware that the issue of the Novel Coronavirus might be deemed serious this however
6 cannot and never must be deemed to be acceptable to act in violation of constitutional constrains.
7
8 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
9 Australasian Convention)
10 QUOTE
11 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
12 may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
13 declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
14 beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
15 interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
16 END QUOTE
17 .
18 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
19 QUOTE
20 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
21 general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
22 ultra vires arising after a law has been passed.
23 [start page 2004]
24 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 The powers of the Commonwealth is limited also as to actual persons infected and not some
28 general provision against anyone regardless if they are or are not infected.
29
30 The Commonwealth is limited to enforce any legislation through the State Court and as such
31 cannot itself enforce legislative provisions which are without court sanction to do so where is it
32 disputed. My case AEC v Schorel-Hlavka on 19 July 2006 underlined this.
33
34 I have below quotes the various parts of the Hansard Constitution Convention Debates as to the
35 various manner in which the Framers of the Constitution debated the issue of “quarantine”.
36
37 It should be understood it is totally irrelevant what other countries may or may not do as they
38 may not have a constitution in the format as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
39 1900 (UK) provides for.
40
41 Let me be very clear about it my wife is 87 and recently (October 2019) was in hospital and
42 admitted to ICU with heart Failure, fluid in the lungs, etc, and so I am extremely concerned as to
43 the health and wellbeing. However, I realise that my concerns for my wife should never mean I
44 could ignore violations of constitutional rights of anyone. If we were to engage in that kind of
45 conduct politicians will always use some mantra to undermine citizens constitutional rights.
46 We have seen with the WMD (Weapons of mass Destruction) mantra how people was mass
47 murdered and without constitutional authority.
48
49 If we were to turn a blind eye to this issue of the Novel coronavirus then politicians and others
50 will likely build upon this to continue to undermine citizens constitutional rights. This we cannot
51 accept nor stand for!
52
54 Convention)
55 QUOTE
Page 3
1 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
2 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
3 of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
4 sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
5 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 Many Australian soldiers have given their lives to protect the people of the Commonwealth of
9 Australia so they can enjoy the freedoms our constitution provides for.
10
11 The obligation is upon each and every persons, regardless of his/her political views, public
12 position, etc, as to ensure those soldiers death was not in vain and to be the sentries the Framers
13 of the Constitution alluded to.
14 .
15 We should not ignore that viruses have been going around from time to time and the gross
16 incompetence of Ministers of health to therefore fail to ensure that the State Health system is
17 ready cannot be used as some excuse to rob people of their constitutional rights.
18 .
19 Often there are claims that the State Health System may not cope with it all, yet then cruise ships
20 that could be converted to hospital ships are ordered to leave notably by Premiers who I view
21 constitutionally lack such powers.
22
23 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/andrew-p-napolitano/can-the-government-restrict-travel-
24 to-protect-public-health/
25 Can the Government Restrict Travel to Protect Public Health?
26 By Andrew P. Napolitano
27 Judge Andrew Napolitano: Coronavirus fear lets government assault our freedom in violation of
28 Constitution
29 https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/goverment-restrict-public-health-judge-andrew-napolitano
30
31 I will not quote the entire statement as the links will enable you to do so.
32
33 Our constitutional system is based upon that the Commonwealth can charge a person of an
34 alleged crime before the State courts exercising federal jurisdiction and not otherwise. As such, it
35 cannot apply a general ban against ordinary citizens that they are not permitted to move about,
36 etc. Neither can the States do so as they lack the constitutional authority for this.
37
38 If indeed as many seem to suggest that the 5G system is causing the real problems of the Novel
39 Coronavirus (COVID-19) and yet neither the Commonwealth and/or the States are pursuing a
40 proper investigating about this then this too may underline that the politicians claim to care but
41 in reality ignore to show to do so.
42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y1NRNF3Sm0
43 They Do NOT Want You Seeing This! - 5G Death Towers Exposed
44
45 https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-04-06-5g-alter-hemoglobin-coronavirus-patients-oxygen-
46 deprivation.html
47 Can 5G exposure alter the structure and function of hemoglobin, causing coronavirus patients to die from oxygen deprivation?
48
49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=P9dAN9VZdNQ&feature=emb_titlehttps://www.yout
50 ube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=P9dAN9VZdNQ&feature=emb_title

Page 4
1 Former Vodafone boss blows whistle on 5G and COVID19. - YouTube

2 Former Vodafone boss blows whistle on weaponized 5G and COVID19. This keeps getting deleted so im re-
3 uploading it as the public deserve to hear it. It is a shorter version of the original as it ...
4
5 We have a constitution and must adhere to this no matter what as any violation is
6 unconstitutional and cannot be excused.
7 My constitutional rights and so of any citizen cannot be denied merely upon the wimps of
8 politicians. Again, with the WMD their mantra was for a pre-emptive strike where in reality
9 President Saddam Hussein was not even contemplating any attack from Iraq upon the
10 Commonwealth of Australia. Any citizen pursuing this kind of horrendous conduct to be
11 inflicted upon a fellow citizen more than likely would end up being convicted and spend the rest
12 of his life in prison confinement. Politicians somehow had, albeit wrongly, placed themselves
13 above the rule of law. This is why we need to stop this.
14
15 My wife as senior citizen have not been aware that any State of Federal Government by their so
16 called mandatory rules have provide any form of relief such as food parcels, etc. As such, they
17 have made life rather more contemplated. Surely if this was a real issue about health and safety
18 concerns and not just a political trick to invoke further unconstitutional powers under the guise
19 of being for the safety and wellbeing of citizens, then where are the facemask as they are freely
20 issued as I understand it in New Zealand? Why is there no emergency food supplies to the
21 elderly, the invalid and the carers?
22
23 With employees of various stores having been found to have contracted COVID-19 then this if
24 anything places at potential risk (of contamination of the products placed on the shelves) the very
25 elderly who are claimed to be first in line to shop at 7am. An ungodly hour for many.
26
27 I also noted that some supermarkets have empty shelves in the stores while one can order the
28 product via the internet from its website. As such, it appears there is a desire by supermarkets
29 make a handsome profit in that manner. This while senior citizens and others struggling to get to
30 a supermarket are discovering a trip likely without the needed products on the shelves.
31
32 In my view if a person is infected and directed to isolate then I view this should be with that an
33 emergency food parcel is provided for the duration of the isolation and not as I understand
34 happens that an infected person then has to go shopping to get food for the period of isolation.
35
36 While the ruby Princess is in NSW nevertheless I view that it violates the Titanic Board of
37 Inquiry recommendations that one should never send any person life to be depending upon the
38 perils of the sea. As such where there is a cruise ship with sick people on board then I view any
39 state is required to ensure the person is first nursed to health before a ship can be ordered to leave
40 with such person.
41
42 Below are not all instances of references to the QUARANTINE issue but does reflect in general
43 what the Framers of the constitution debated about the issue.
44 While in general States are entitled to apply certain restrictions regarding quarantine of animals
45 it has no such powers when to comes to “man-kind” health issues such as COVID-19. And, the
46 ports are actually under federal control and as such it is not for a State Government to direct a
47 cruiseship to leave as it is within the realm of power of the Commonwealth.
48
49 In my view the State Government and the Victorian Police as well as the PSO’s should seize and
50 desist any further to enforce rules, etc, that are in violation of the constitutional compact and so
51 the rights of citizens.
52
Page 5
2 Convention)
3 QUOTE Mr. FYSH:
4 Those who have been making the laws of their own colonies, and those whose businesses have compelled the
5 making of these laws, have felt the disadvantages of the incongruity of the bankruptcy acts, and,
6 domestically, we regard our marriage and divorce laws as great incongruities; and when we free our ports
7 there can be no doubt that the regulations as to the navigation of our fleets, and matters connected with our
8 quarantine ports, and various other subjects of that kind, must be a federal concern; but as to whether it may
9 be wise to be so self-contained in Australasia in connection with our judiciary system as not to permit an
10 appeal outside of Australasia must be a matter of which I trust the law officers which are so well representing
11 their respective colonies here will put clearly before the Convention.
12 END QUOTE
13
16 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
17 The appointment of the civil service it is proposed to vest in the governor-general-in-council. These
18 provisions introduce what we call responsible government-not necessarily party government, which is
19 another division of responsible government, but a government responsible in name and form to the
20 head of the state and in substance to the parliament of the commonwealth. It is proposed that its
21 executive authority shall be co-extensive with its legislative power. That follows as a matter of course. In
22 immediately starting the business of the commonwealth, it is provided that certain powers may be taken over
23 at once by the executive government of the commonwealth, namely, as to customs, excise, posts and
24 telegraphs, military and naval defence, ocean beacons and buoys and ocean lighthouses and lightships, and
25 quarantine. Other matters are left to be dealt with by the federal legislature from time to time as they may
26 think fit.
27 END QUOTE
28
30 Convention)4
31 QUOTE
32 (2.) The government of any territory which may by surrender of any state or states and the acceptance of the
33 parliament become the seat of government of the [start page 702] commonwealth, and the exercise of like
34 authority over all places acquired by the commonwealth, with the consent of the parliament of the state in
35 which such places are situate, for the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, quarantine
36 stations, or for any other purposes of general concern;
37 END QUOTE
38
40 Convention)
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. THYNNE: I have nothing more to say with reference to the hon. member. With regard to my hon.
43 friend, Mr. Wrixon, another delegate from Victoria, we find that it has hitherto been almost the invariable
44 rule in Australian politics that distinguished statesmen who have left the colonies for a short time, on
45 business howsoever important, have found it necessary to undergo on their return some period of political
46 quarantine before returning to political power.
47 END QUOTE
48
51 QUOTE
52 Dr. QUICK to move:
53 That a return be laid before this Convention showing-
54 I. The present annual cost of maintaining the following services in each of the Australian
55 Colonies, viz.:-Quarantine, ocean beacons and buoys, ocean lighthouses and lightships.
56 II. The average annual cost of such services in each of the said colonies during the last ten
57 years.
58 END QUOTE

Page 6
1
4 QUOTE
5 We must see that the new body has absolute control over the Customs and Excise duties and bounties. There
6 are other matters which I need not go into. There is defence and quarantine, and similar matters, which will
7 be placed under the Federal Government, and, in fact, we may say all matters relating to the external affairs,
8 internal commerce, defence, and general government can safely be placed in the hands of the new body, and
9 the States can retain all the other powers which they now possess.
10 END QUOTE
11
14 QUOTE Mr. HOLDER:
15 There are many matters which may be handed over with great advantage to the federal authority, such as
16 Customs and Excise, for instance. There are no subjects which have a broader or a more national interest than
17 these, and of all others these are the ones which we should first entrust to the care and control of the federal
18 authority. Defence, also, is a subject which must be vested in the Federation. Lighthouses, quarantine, and
19 matters relating to shipping regulations, are all subjects which will find their way naturally into the hands of
20 federal authority; but for the rest, let us keep within our own power all we possibly can.
21 END QUOTE
22
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. LYNE: If Mr. Holder's ideas were carried out you would hardly want either. I think he would hand
27 over the question of defence, the question of quarantine, and the question of a Federal Supreme Court.
28 END QUOTE
29
30
33 QUOTE Sir PHILIP FYSH:
34 If you do anything more than proceed on the lines of the Convention of 1891 you must instruct your
35 Financial Committee that the expenditure in connection with the construction of the various fortifications
36 shall be taken over. You are also going to take over matters affecting quarantine and shipping. If we are
37 going to be the lighters of our maritime highways, a Federal Marine Board will be as absolutely necessary as
38 the existing Marine Boards of the various colonies. If we are going to take over the responsibility of lighting
39 the beacons and wharves, as was proposed in the Bill of 1891, you must give instructions to the Finance
40 Committee to make provision for taking over the cost of those lighthouses, etc. These works must be the
41 responsibility of the Federal Government, if it takes the revenues which are to be raised therefrom.
42 END QUOTE
43
44
47 QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST:
48 Then the Federal Parliament should have control of the postal and telegraph departments, though I am quite
49 certain that it would be all against the interests of Western Australia to have it so. Quarantine is a fit subject
50 for federal control, and so are harbors and lights, but at the same time I do not think the Central Government
51 would look after the lights on the various coasts half so well as the local Governments.
52 END QUOTE
53
54
57 QUOTE Mr. WALKER:

Page 7
1 The first consideration undoubtedly is to be able to defend ourselves. On this point I

2 thoroughly agree that the total cost of defence, as well as quarantine, should be borne by
3 the federal authorities.
4 END QUOTE
5
6
9 QUOTE Mr. WALKER:
10 You will have to transfer to the Federal Government the cost of defences, quarantine, lighthouses, buoys,
11 and so forth, and also charge them with the interest on the cost of fortifications in all the colonies.
12 END QUOTE
13
14
17 QUOTE
18 Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: That is practically the outcome of what they say. They also propose that the
19 Federal Government shall only have the control of defence, light- [start page 360] houses, quarantine
20 regulations, and ports and harbors bordering on the seacoast.
21 END QUOTE
22
23
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. BARTON: It would be a division which would hamper the Federal Government by the inconvenience
28 of the arrangement which would follow on their division. If we are to confine the Commonwealth to [start
29 page 377] a body which is to simply frame a Customs tariff, and to take charge of such matters as
30 quarantine, ocean lighthouses, and some little interference with buoys and beacons, it is a pity that the
31 States have gone to the expense-in one instance I believe of between £30,000 and £40,000-of holding the
32 election in order to be represented here. Let me not be unfair, because this very question brings me to the
33 question of the protection of the States. There is no one who holds more strongly than I do that it is necessary
34 to provide for the maintenance of the proper individuality of the States. Those who took part in the
35 Convention of 1891 can bear witness in that respect. I recognise the great difficulties there are in the way of
36 maintaining the full individuality of the States, and at the same time adhering to our well known form of
37 responsible government; but I believe that they can be surmounted, and that it would be a shame on us if we,
38 in the first instance, charged with the framing of our Constitution, did not make an effort to surmount them.
39 Recognising these difficulties, I believe that the States which happen to be the less populous, should be dealt
40 with liberally and generously. The State interests must be conserved, not only by safeguarding their full right
41 to exercise all functions reserved to them, but by making the powers to be exercised by them so certain that
42 there can be no doubt, even if the matter is referred to the Supreme Court, about the clearness of the
43 definition.
44 Sir RICHARD BAKER: There is the danger of the powers overlapping.

45 Mr. BARTON: I am coming to that in a minute. We have not only to attempt to safeguard State rights by
46 placing provisions for that purpose in the Constitution, but we must also take great care to make the
47 machinery as fully applicable to the preservation of those interests which are erroneously called State rights
48 as if they also were set down in the bond. There have been cases of overlapping, as we find in the records of
49 the United States, and the reports of the Privy Council in the case of Canada. We know that there is constant
50 liability to overlapping; that when the federal body exercises its powers of legislation which are definitely
51 given to it, if the utmost care and the utmost precision are not exercised to confine the legislative operations
52 within the circle of the power given in the Constitution, there will be these cases of overlapping in the federal
53 law, which would constitute an encroachment upon the competency and individuality of the States. These
54 cases must arise, and they form one of the strongest arguments for a second Chamber in the Federation, and
55 for arming that Chamber with competent powers to prevent that overlapping. When such cases occur, you
56 have to call in the machinery of the Federal Court, and may be afterwards the machinery of the Privy
57 Council; but is it not better that there should be in the Constitution an element in the shape of a second
Page 8
1 Chamber, which will do its utmost to try and keep these powers, which will keep legislation within
2 Constitutional limits, and prevent resort to authorities external to Parliament? That is one of the strongest
3 necessities it seems to me for a second Chamber. If the principle is not conceded that federal laws require the
4 assent of the people and the assent of the States, why is it that the most democratic amongst us concede two
5 Houses? I suppose there are some among us who will say that in a separate form of government, a
6 government not united or federated, they would get along very well with one Chamber instead of two. But
7 the most democratic-even if they are not representatives of this hospitable State in which we are now sitting,
8 South Australia, there are those of Tasmania, and others -who would urge this, that even if they might not be
9 reconciled to a second Chamber in their own colony as a separate State, they would not be reconciled to a
10 Federation without a second Chamber. Why is this, unless it be a recognition of the fact that the laws require
11 the assent of the people and also of the States? With [start page 378] a National Assembly as the sole
12 Chamber the clear tendency must be to engulf State interests. If you have the States Assembly alone with
13 equal representation, there would, I think, be a clear tendency to that kind of loose confederation in which the
14 Union would be dependent upon the States. If that were the priniciple of the Federation we should have
15 something very little better than the principle of even the Federal Council at Hobart or the abolished Articles
16 of Confederation of the United States. It is recognised that neither of these things will do; that you must have
17 two Chambers, one Chamber for the representation of national interests and the other Chamber for the
18 representation of State interests. If you depart from that principle you must be giving too great power to the
19 national interests or too great power to the State interests and the golden mean is reached by granting these
20 two Chambers. This is, of course, an elementary proposition; and the reason I refer to it I will make clear
21 enough. The reason is that if you have your body constituted in either of the ways I have spoken of, neither of
22 the conditions would make a Federation; and as we come here charged to make a Federal Constitution, we
23 cannot make a piece of legislative machinery of that kind. We must not make our legislative machinery so
24 that we shall have either unification on the one hand. or a confederacy on the other. Clearly, then, the
25 intention of two Houses is to make the principle a rule of daily governance. Though it might happen that such
26 necessity might not arise in more than a fractional part of the proceedings of the Commonwealth, still the
27 principle must be inserted as a rule of daily governance, because there will be no day on which the necessity
28 for the exercise of that principle might not arise. Then the mere concession of the principle of two Houses is
29 enough to show that one must rest on the basis of proportional population, the other on State entities. This is
30 the gist of the matter, that there are two different entities to be preserved. They are both necessary to
31 constitute a Federation. One unit is the individual citizen, and the other unit is the State entity. We are bound
32 to confess that both the individual citizen as represented in the National Assembly and the individual State as
33 represented in the States Council must have their powers, and you must provide so that in each case the
34 majority of the units shall prevail. I do say that you must so protect your Constitution that you will not have a
35 majority of citizens dominating the State interests, or the State interests dominating the national life; but it
36 must be so constituted that the interests they each represent are firmly embedded in the Constitution, and you
37 must leave the future to the evolution of those two legislative bodies, which command the respect of both
38 entities of the Federation, namely, the majority of the citizens, and the majority of the States. At the same
39 time attacks have been made in the course of debate by the representatives of both extremes.
40 END QUOTE
41
42
45 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
46 I have read over again and again the long list of powers with which this Commonwealth is to be invested; and
47 on each one of those, thirty-five in the fiftieth clause and four in the next, have asked myself in how many are
48 State interests likely to be involved, and how often? Members who read them will see that scarcely one of the
49 provisions, neither those with regard to tariff or navigation and shipping, or quarantine, or currency and
50 coinage and legal tender, are likely to be at all affected by the question whether an elector resides in a large
51 or a small State.
52 END QUOTE
53
54
57 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
58 With most of these things no one State is concerned with the management of the other, but there are certain
59 matters-such as defence, quarantine, and various other things-we generally agree upon, in which we as a
60 people say we are concerned, not as residents of Victoria, Tasmania, or any other colony, but because our
61 interests and our desires are united. We say there is henceforth to be no distinction between us; let us blot out
Page 9
1 of our future history and out of our future politics the arbitrary fact that we are residents of different colonies,
2 and if we start with that and we select these subjects, it is on the distinct basis that our interests are identical.
3 If our interests are identical why do we have it continually thrown in our face that the diversity of State
4 interests in these matters is to be protected? We select these subjects on which we are agreed; there is by this
5 very hypothesis no diversity of interests in these matters, and the residuary powers are retained by the States.
6 As to these they have their State rights, and the federal authority cannot enter into the sphere one single inch.
7 It is outside the sphere of Federation altogether, but when we have selected these subjects on which our
8 interests are presumably identical the [start page 544] States, as such, have equally little claim to enter.
9 END QUOTE
10
11
14 QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON:
15 What would be the position [start page 571] in which the smaller States would be placed if we agree to this
16 amendment? What will be the privileges of the smaller States? They will have the privilege of being taxed at
17 the hands of the larger States. They will have the privilege of being represented by about twenty-five
18 members. as against fifty members on the other side. The smaller States will contribute at per head of their
19 population as much to the defences, to quarantine, and to all other departments which will be handed over to
20 the Central Parliament for control-and how else could they fairly contribute-but they only have a very small
21 voice in the control of how this money should be spent.
22 END QUOTE
23
24
27 QUOTE
28 II. The government of any territory which by the surrender of any State or States and the acceptance of the
29 Commonwealth becomes the seat of Government of the Commonwealth, and the exercise of like authority
30 over all places acquired by the Commonwealth, with the consent of the State in which such places are situate,
31 for the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, quarantine stations, or for any other purposes
32 of general concern:
33 END QUOTE
34
35
38 QUOTE The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN:
39 Then take the question of quarantine. That would appear to be a matter in which no question of local
40 interest could arise. But in a continent so huge as this island of Australia, where there is every variety of
41 climatic condition, even the question of quarantine may become a question in which the very existence
42 of a state is threatened. We have a tropical climate, we have a sub-tropical climate, and we have a temperate
43 climate. The northern portion of the island is tropical. A tropical disease may threaten Australia which we
44 know cannot obtain any footing in the eastern, southern, or western provinces. Protection against this disease
45 may be of insignificance to the larger populations, those living in the temperate climate to the south, but it
46 may be a question of the most vital importance, a question of the very existence of the population which may
47 ultimately gather on our northern seaboard. We hardly know these conditions yet, but I could enumerate half
48 a dozen diseases.
49 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: We have a common interest in preventing disease from decimating
50 Australia?
51 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: But it would not decimate Australia, because it could only affect a few
52 people, a comparatively small portion of the northern parts of this continent.
53 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: But it might travel!
54 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: I mean diseases that would not travel; diseases that are strictly tropical.
55 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: If they would not travel they ought not to come under a federal act!
Page 10
1 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: You cannot pick out these things. The question might be one affecting two
2 or three colonies possibly it might affect Queensland and South Australia only, or possibly also a portion of
3 Western Australia. It might be a question of vital importance to those colonies, but of not the slightest
4 importance to Tasmania, Victoria, or New South Wales.
5 [start page 677]
6 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: Surely the Government would do what was right!
7 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: The Government would do what was right if they had not the ultimate power
8 to do what was wrong.
9 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: The Government would not have any, interest in doing what was wrong!
10 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: We all know that, in representative chambers, the view that ultimately
11 prevails is in accordance with the representation in that chamber. If a district is fairly represented, it gets
12 justice; if it is inadequately represented, and can be disregarded, it very often does not get justice. It would be
13 the same in the case of the senate, if its views could be set aside by a mass referendum. Even the question of
14 marriage and divorce is of importance to all the colonies. At present, we have absolute autonomy in that
15 respect; we make our own laws. It would be an injustice to say that the laws of marriage and divorce, which
16 are to affect South Australia, should be framed by any parliament in which that colony had not an adequate
17 representation. If there were power to set aside the wish of the senate, in which we would have a fair
18 representation, you would make us really a quantity which need not be taken into account at all you would
19 totally abolish our autonomy in these matters; and I say autonomy is too dear a privilege to be lightly got rid
20 of in this way. We all of us now manage our own affairs according to our own views.
21 END QUOTE
22
23
26 QUOTE
27 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[12.42]: It may be interesting for the hon. and learned
28 member, Dr. Cockburn, to hear this very concise statement of the law of the United States, which would be
29 exactly applicable to this proposed constitution, and very much on the lines that the hon. and learned
30 member, Mr. Isaacs, has just stated. I am citing from a well-known book, Ordronaux's "Constitutional
31 Legislation." At page 296 he says this:
32 By, parity of reason addressed to the protection of the public health, states may exercise their police powers
33 to the extent of prohibiting both persons and animals, when labouring under contagious diseases, from
34 entering their territory. They may pass any sanitary laws deemed necessary for this purpose, and enforce
35 them by appropriate regulations. It is upon this reserved right of self-protection that quarantines are
36 permitted to interfere with the freedom of commerce and of human intercourse. But this power is not
37 without its limitations, and its exercise must be restricted to directly impending dangers to health, and not to
38 those who are only contingent and remote. Hence, while diseased persons or diseased animals, and those
39 presumedly so from contact with infected bodies or. localities, may be prevented from entering a state, any
40 general law of exclusion, measured by months, or operating in such a way as to become a barrier to
41 commerce or travel, would be a regulation of commerce forbidden by the constitution. Such a statute being
42 more than a quarantine regulation, transcends the legitimate powers of a state.
43 So it is quite clear that all the powers are left in the state, which are necessary for the preservation of
44 the health of the inhabitants and of the property by the state. Those powers would include power to deal
45 with such diseases in the vegetable world as the hon. and learned member; Dr. Cockburn, has spoken of, and
46 also with animal diseases. It was suggested in Adelaide that these powers might be used in such a way as to
47 have a protective influence in favour of certain states.
48 Mr. Symon: That would be in conflict with the constitution!
49 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: I was going to point that out. There are a number of decisions in
50 America, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned friend, in which on that very ground or
51 similar grounds it has been held that the law, not being a bona fide exercise of the police powers, is not
52 within the powers of the state. Of course, there is another question behind all that, which I think is a very
53 important one, that is, considering the immense traffic, say, in cattle, that there is right across this continent,

Page 11
1 the infrequency of habitation, and the difficulties of enforcing the quarantine laws from state to state, whether
2 such a disease, for instance, as the tick disease should be dealt with by the authority of the commonwealth
3 instead of by the states themselves. It is a very important question, and there are many difficulties in the way
4 of its being dealt with by the federal authority. One of the chief of them is, I think, the impossibility of the
5 federal authority administering an act of that kind without having an enormous array of officials and
6 immense expenditure. As we all know, there are in each colony laws-affecting contagious diseases of cattle
7 or sheep, and they are all administered by local bodies, The machinery and administration are simple, and the
8 laws are cheaply worked in the various districts themselves. But if you place them under the federal
9 movement, to be operated by federal officers, you render an [start page 1063] immense machinery
10 necessary to carry out the very simple objects which are carried out by the local bodies at the present
11 time. It appears to me that the balance of reason is in favour of leaving things as they are, leaving power in
12 the states to deal with all those matters that come under the head of police powers in the United States, the
13 infection of animals, the infection of vegetables, the introduction of, animal and vegetable diseases. There is
14 ample power to deal with them, and I think that the matter might be left in that way.
15 The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that there is no question of quarantine or quarantine
16 regulations before the Committee.
17 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia)[12.47]: I think we should renew this debate at some future
18 period. In reply to the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, I may say that I am not at all sure that our
19 proposed constitution does not go further in reference-to free-trade between the states than the American
20 Constitution does, and therefore, it might require some further provision in view of the very strong words
21 which it contains, although such a provision might not be necessary in America. Words simply prohibiting
22 the introduction of actual disease would not be sufficient. I admit that the decision which has been quoted
23 relates also to anything that has been in contact with any disease in anyway. But it would be necessary in
24 many cases actually to prohibit the introduction of all cattle and all vegetables of a certain character. If
25 Queensland were to relax her local quarantine regulations, it might be necessary for the adjoining colony to
26 prohibit a single hoof of cattle from crossing the border, and this might be held to be an absolute derogation
27 from freedom of trade, unless there were special provision in the constitution dealing with it. It might be
28 necessary for South Australia to prevent the importation of any portion of a vine, and this might be said to
29 seriously derogate from freedom of trade between the colonies. I ask the Drafting Committee to be
30 exceedingly careful in the matter. I think the power does not exist, and I am sure that it should exist for
31 otherwise we should find that the opposition to this constitution bill, if it is assumed that there is no such
32 power given, would be of a very fierce and vehement character.
33 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria)[12.49]: I think that I can reassure the hon. and learned member to some extent. He
34 has raised an important point, and I do not think that we should reserve these important points until we meet
35 in Melbourne, but should settle them now if we can do so.
36 The Hon. E. BARTON: In how many weeks? We have not finished one provision in two and a half
37 hours!
38 Mr. HIGGINS: But this is one of the most important parts of the bill. I think it is our duty, not to have
39 tentative solutions, but to make the best solution we can, and I feel, now that this question has been raised, it
40 is our duty to devote ourselves to it. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the proposed bill goes
41 further in the direction of providing for free intercourse and freedom of trade between the states than does the
42 American Constitution. It goes much further.
43 An HON. MEMBER: By reason of the general words in clause 89. It is proposed to eliminate those
44 words!
45 Mr. HIGGINS: Yes; I made a note of that. It is perfectly clear that under the American Constitution a state
46 can make a law preventing the sale within its own borders of animals having any disease, and to prevent the
47 introduction of such animals, into its territory.
48 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: There is no doubt about that!
49 Mr. HIGGINS: The hon. and learned member is quite right in saying that if clause 89 remains as it is
50 the states of the [start page 1064] Australasian commonwealth will have no such power. A good
51 example of the application of this law in America is given at page 104 of Baker's "Annotated Constitution of
52 the United States":

Page 12
1 The statute of Minnesota approved April 16th, 1889, entitled " An act for the protection of the public health,
2 by providing for inspection, before slaughtering of cattle, sheep, and swine designed for slaughter for human
3 food" is unconstitutional and void in so far as it requires, as a condition of sales in Minnesota of fresh beef,
4 veal, mutton, lamb, or pork for human food, that the animals from which such meats are taken shall have
5 been inspected in that state before being slaughtered. The inspection thus provided for is of such a character,
6 or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent the introduction into the state of sound meats, the
7 product of animals slaughtered in other states.
8 To make an inspection law was prima facie within the powers of the state of Minnesota; but the state
9 legislature went beyond its powers in enacting an act which provided for an inspection of such a character as
10 to interfere with the sale in Minnesota of meat brought from other states, Under the bill, as it stands,
11 measures to prevent the introduction of tick will be beyond the powers of the states to enact. Under the
12 American Constitution, full power is given to provide against the introduction of tick into a state; but if in
13 preventing the introduction of tick or other disease, an undue interference with the course of trade is created,
14 which protects one state against the other states, the courts will interfere, and say that the law is
15 unconstitutional and void. I think that the course of leaving this matter to the Drafting Committee to consider
16 is the correct one.
17 The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[12.53]: I intimated a little earlier -I do not know that the hon.
18 and learned member, Dr. Cockburn, heard me-that I intended to make clause 89 read in this way:
19 So soon as uniform duties of customs have been imposed, trade and intercourse throughout the
20 commonwealth is not to be restricted or interfered with by any taxes, charges, or imposts.
21 If this amendment is made, the matter maybe considered in connection with clause 99, which provides that:
22 All powers which at the establishment of the commonwealth are vested in the parliaments of the
23 several colonies, and which are not by this constitution exclusively vested in the parliament of the
24 commonwealth, or withdrawn from the parliaments of the several states, are reserved to, and shall
25 remain vested in, the parliaments of the states respectively.
26 At the present time this power exists in all the states; but if the amendments I have suggested be carried the
27 prohibition of the importation of diseased animals or plants will not be a matter of taxes, charges, or imposts.
28 Therefore, the power to prevent the introduction of diseases would still remain with the states, except
29 in so far as any state law was found to be an intentional derogation from the freedom of trade. I think
30 that if we amend clause 89 in the way I suggest the object of the hon. and learned member, Dr. Cockburn,
31 will be met; but if it is not met I will undertake to deal with the matter in any way that he suggests.
32 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: I am quite satisfied!
33 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[12.56]: Will the hon. and learned member also take note in this
34 connection of the concluding words of clause 95? That clause must be brought into accord with clause 89 as
35 amended. I would also point out with regard to the word "country" that some little difference of opinion may
36 arise as to the meaning of that word. The sub-clause relates to "countries" and to "states." "States" we know
37 are such parts of Australia as are within the commonwealth. If any colony stands out it may be a little
38 doubtful whether it will be a "country." Would Queensland, if it stood out, be a "country"?
40 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: A territory would be either a state of the commonwealth, or another
41 country!
42 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: The word "country" might mean an independent state.
43 The Hon. E. BARTON: I will keep the matter in mind, though I fancy it is all right!
44 Sub-clause 1 agreed to.

45
46 END QUOTE
47
48
49
Page 13
3 QUOTE
4 Sub-clause 11. Quarantine.
5 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[2.43]: I think there is a matter connected with this
6 clause which deserves consideration. In the first place, we ought to be clear in our minds what we
7 intend to, cover by the word "quarantine" The word "quarantine" in its original meaning no doubt
8 applied only to the quarantine of ships-the quarantine of forty days required under the old laws for the
9 purification of a ship from disease. But I think the meaning of quarantine has gradually, extended
10 much beyond that, and the word is now applied to an enclosure to prevent diseases that have been
11 contracted on board ship from spreading to the land. It means general powers of isolation in all cases. I
12 think we ought, in [start page 1072] the first place, to decide whether we intend to interfere with the
13 general health powers which the states now possess, and ought, perhaps, to retain, or only with those
14 matters which are generally spoken of as marine quarantine. The question is whether we should give
15 power to the commonwealth under any circumstances to legislate in regard to those matters that
16 belong to the care of the public health in the different states?
17 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: They would not do that, unless they thought that the health of other states
18 was concerned!
19 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: This is one of those cases in which we should first of all decide on a policy,
20 and then make a definite provision. As to what the policy should be, it appears to me that the commonwealth
21 power should extend only to those matters that affect the health of the commonwealth from outside.
22 Therefore I am prepared to move:
23 That the word "quarantine" be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "public health in
24 relation to infection or contagion from outside the commonwealth."
25 I will point out one reason why a provision of that kind is necessary. Supposing that all the colonies were
26 not included in the federation, you might have smallpox, or some other contagious disease, in one colony
27 which was not in the federation, and along the whole line of the boundary it would be necessary to make
28 exactly similar provisions to those which would have to be made at the seaports. Now, under the head of
29 "quarantine" I doubt very much whether such a power would be included; whereas if you say that the power
30 is to be over matters connected with the "public health in relation to infection or contagion from outside the
31 commonwealth," you state accurately what you mean." It appears to me that those words cover every
32 possible case you want to deal with, and would make a line of demarcation between diseases that arose or
33 spread within the states themselves which is a matter that ought to be dealt with by the health authorities of
34 each state -and diseases that arose outside, which undoubtedly could be dealt with properly only by one
35 authority for the whole commonwealth. In the first place, as far as policy is concerned, that is a matter for the
36 Committee to decide. If hon. members decide as to policy, then how it is to be expressed is more or less a
37 matter of drafting. But if the matter is considered worthy of consideration, I will move the insertion of the
38 words I have suggested.
39 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[2.48]: I hope that the hon. and learned member will not move an
40 amendment to that effect. I think that the meaning of the word "quarantine" is pretty well known.
41 There is no doubt that leaving the sub-clause as it is preserves to every state the power that it now has
42 to make laws in relation to all such subjects. It does not vest an exclusive power in the commonwealth to
43 pass such laws. The state can pass its own law, and alter it as it pleases; but I think it is well to do as
44 was done in the Canadian act in that respect-to give a power which the commonwealth might, in case
45 of emergency, employ for the sake of the general health power to make a law respecting quarantine, as
46 it is generally understood, so as to preserve all the ports of the commonwealth, not only from infection
47 from abroad, but also from the danger of any infection which might have reached one port of the
48 commonwealth spreading to the rest of the commonwealth. I think that there is no great harm in retaining
49 the word "quarantine," and that, if we were to eliminate this word, the day might come when we would very
50 much regret having done so.
51 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: The subclause as it stands now provides for the quarantine of animals!

Page 14
1 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: I believe it would include the quarantine of animals if those animals when
2 slaughtered would go into consumption as food, and might thereby affect the public health.
3 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: What about the quarantine of dogs?
4 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: I think that the federal parliament should have the power to deal with this
5 matter if it thinks fit to do so, While the states might be left to protect themselves, surely, no harm
6 would be done if we enabled the federal parliament to do more than any state could do, that is, give
7 protection to the whole commonwealth.
8 The Right Hon. Sir E. BRADDON (Tasmania)[2.52]: At the present time an arrangement has been come to
9 by the joint action of the various colonies in regard to the quarantine of animals. The inspectors of stock meet
10 from time to time, and agree to regulations which are afterwards enforced by their various governments.
11 The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: But any one of the colonies may at any time withdraw from the compact!
12 The Right Hon. Sir E. BRADDON: Yes. Of course it is not desirable that any colony should withdraw.
13 The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, intend to move an amendment?
14 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: No. I see that there is sufficient reason for leaving the words in the clause. I
15 drew attention to the matter because I thought it was worthy of consideration, and when we meet again
16 perhaps some improvement may be suggested.
17 Sub-clause 11 agreed to.

18
19 END QUOTE
20
21
24 QUOTE
25 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-As to this sub-section, there are one or two matters which I should like
26 to point out to the committee, and then leave it to them to say if they are matters of drafting or matters of
27 substance. I think myself that they do partake of substance. This is the sub-section which relates to an
28 exclusive power to be given to the Commonwealth to deal with territory or certain pieces of land
29 required for Commonwealth purposes, the territory being for the seat of government, and other pieces of
30 land being for the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, quarantine stations or for any
31 other purposes of general concern.
32 END QUOTE
33
34
37 QUOTE
38 Dr. COCKBURN.-I do not think there ought to be. Whether or not there ought to be is a matter for debate
39 and for settlement by this Convention as a question of principle, and not as a mere matter of wording. Now,
40 take the second part of the sub-section, in which power is given with the consent of the state for the
41 construction, say, of a quarantine station. I question very much whether the power to establish such a
42 station as a leper station, for example, ought to be given to the Federal Parliament without having to
43 consult the wishes of the state in which it is proposed to establish such an institution. The Federal
44 Parliament will be a distant body, and it may not be exactly apprised of all the local conditions. It may want
45 to establish a leper station in some part of Australia where its establishment would be most disastrous to the
46 interests of the communities in the vicinity, which ought, I think, to have a voice in a matter of this sort.
47 These words are put in to make it abundantly clear that the federal capital shall be chosen only with the
48 consent of the state concerned, which consent would, of course, be given in most cases. I should like to have
49 the matter I have referred to made perfectly clear. It is open to doubt at present, I think, whether the
50 Federal Parliament will have power to take any land for the purposes of government without the
51 consent of the state concerned. I do not think the Federal Parliament should have such a power, and I
52 should be sorry to see it have such a power by the mere insertion of certain words which were not
53 intended to have that meaning. I should like this committee to be clear as to whether or not it is
Page 15
1 intended that the Federal Parliament should have power to take land from any state without the
2 consent of the state.
3 Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I think the honorable member who has last spoken is quite
4 right; but there is a great distinction between the two classes of matters dealt with in this sub-section. I
5 think that the seat of government of the Commonwealth ought to be in quite a different position to
6 such matters as the construction of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and so on. Dr. Cockburn will
7 recollect that there is no such power for the acquisition of land for the ordinary public purposes of the
8 Commonwealth.
9 Dr. COCKBURN.-Might not the power be included in the general powers of sub-section (37)?
10 Mr. OCONNOR.-No. The only powers that can be held to be given are those which are expressly
11 given. It will be wise, later on, to add a clause which I think the Convention will see the advisability of
12 adding, restricting the power to acquire land to acquisition for the public purposes of the
13 Commonwealth; and I think it should then be made very clear that no power is given in that clause to
14 acquire land for a federal capital without the consent of the state interested. Because it is quite clear,
15 from the nature of things, that it is quite impossible that a power of that kind could be carried out
16 without such an amount of friction and difficulty as might lead to a great deal of trouble.
17
18 END QUOTE
19
20
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. OCONNOR.-Undoubtedly; because in regard to defence there should be a paramount power for
25 the Commonwealth to act as might be thought necessary, and there should be a similar power with
26 regard to quarantine and other matters which are of general concern. But with regard to the acquisition
27 of a piece of land for the seat of government, which must [start page 259] embrace a large area and be an
28 exceedingly important matter for the state in which it is situated, the Commonwealth should not have power
29 to obtain such land without the consent of the state. That can be dealt with when we are dealing with the
30 general clause, giving power to acquire land for the use of the state.
31 Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not clause 105 answer that objection?
32 Mr. OCONNOR.-No; that is simply a permissive power to the Parliament of the state to surrender any
33 portion of its territory.
34 Mr. ISAACS.-And saying what shall happen if they do.
35 Mr. OCONNOR.-Quite so; but that clause does not deal with the question as to whether the
36 Commonwealth may acquire land for any purpose.
37 Mr. SYMON.-Is that power of the state necessary in this Constitution at all?
38 Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not know that it is.
39 Mr. SYMON.-I think it is an interference.

40 END QUOTE
41
42
44 Convention)
45 QUOTE
46 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I remember well that this question was raised in Adelaide by the
47 honorable member (Dr. Cockburn), and there is a great deal in it. The section in the American Constitution is
48 as follows:-

Page 16
1 No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what
2 may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts
3 made by any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States, and all such
4 laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
5 Then it goes on to other subjects, such as maintaining armies and levying war. A case which the honorable
6 member (Mr. Isaacs) mentioned appears clearly to go the length which he suggested, that is that this section
7 as it exists in the American Constitution, or the parallel clause, does not deal with inter-state commerce but
8 only with imports from or exports to foreign countries. That might be got rid of, as far as this clause is
9 concerned, by a small amendment. For instance, after the words "imports and exports," we might insert
10 "inter-state or foreign" or similar words. That will show clearly that the power was intended to be reserved to
11 the states to deal with importation even from other colonies of such pests as have been mentioned. It might be
12 as well between now and the next occasion upon which we deal with this clause to draft an amendment to
13 meet the position. Mr. Isaacs has referred me to a decision in America, in the State of Minnesota v. Barber,
14 136 U.S., 313, which goes this length:-
15 The statute of Minnesota providing for inspection within the state of animals designed for meat, by its
16 necessary operation practically excludes from the markets of that state all fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or
17 pork, in whatever form, if taken from animals slaughtered in other states, notwithstanding the same may be
18 sound and healthy. The result is that it thus directly tends to restrict the slaughtering of animals whose meat
19 is to be sold in Minnesota to those engaged in such business in that state. This discrimination is an
20 encumbrance on commerce amongst states, and is unconstitutional. It cannot be regarded as a rightful
21 exertion of the police power of the state. A burden thus imposed is not to be sustained simply because the
22 statute imposing it applies alike to the people of all the states, including the state enacting it.
23 That is a statute which applied to every animal, whether sound and healthy or not, entering the state and
24 designed for meat. That does not apply to the case which arises under the clause with which we are now
25 dealing. What we want here, I take it, is to see that the states retain power to deal with these pests not in the
26 way of prohibition-and the law which was referred to in that case was a prohibition, and was therefore
27 declared unconstitutional. But we want here a provision that the states shall be able to exercise their powers
28 as individual states at proper places such as the ports and borders. That will not be an infringment of free-
29 trade within the Commonwealth. The way to look at it is: Is it desirable that this power shall be placed in the
30 Commonwealth or among the powers of the states? I am inclined [start page 651] strongly to the latter view. I
31 do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the 52nd clause, is intended
32 to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any quarantine. That simply applies to
33 quarantine as referring to diseases among man-kind. I do not think it is intended to enable the
34 Commonwealth to deal with such matters as the tick disease. It has been pointed out by the honorable
35 member (Mr. Fraser) that the Federation should have that power. As far as I am at present advised, that
36 would be a very unwieldy and difficult power for the Commonwealth to use at all. It requires the local
37 knowledge which would only be possessed by the states Parliaments and Governments. I am in favour of the
38 amendment suggested by the honorable member (Mr. Isaacs), and I shall prepare an amendment to make it
39 quite clear that the states shall have power to deal with this matter, not by way of putting on imposts, but
40 simply making charges to enable them to carry out inspection laws.
41 END QUOTE
42
45 QUOTE
46 Dr. QUICK.-I do not think there is any objection on that score. Therefore I would suggest whether the
47 committee should not put naval and military defence under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of clause 90. The
48 same argument will apply with equal force to ocean beacons and [start page 839] buoys, ocean light-houses
49 and light-ships, and quarantine, because the citizens of the Commonwealth are uniformly interested in
50 having a good system in regard to these matters. I think we should accustom ourselves to the system of
51 federalization as far as possible from the beginning; and I feel certain that unless that be done in regard to
52 defence, at any rate, this scheme will receive very hostile criticism outside, and probably the Convention may
53 be accused of a want of breadth of view, as well as of a want of patriotism. There is no financial difficulty
54 arising in regard to the distribution of the surplus in the matter of federal defence, and therefore I would
55 suggest that the matter should be considered as one of importance. Undoubtedly, the proviso to which Mr.
56 O'Connor has directed my attention is a very good one. It goes a long way to meet some of the points I have
57 mentioned.

Page 17
1 Mr. HOLDER.-It is a half-way-house to complete federation.

2 END QUOTE
3
4 See also: Quick & Garran Page 398, etc.
5
6 So much to its all but in my view the above ought to make it clear that the proposed
7 amendments also will be unconstitutional.
8
9 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
10 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
11 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

12 (Our name is our motto!)


20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman

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

20200408-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Deborah Glass-Victorian Ombudsman

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Page 1

8-4-2020 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-4-2020 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Former Vodafone boss blows whistle on 5G and COVID19. - YouTube

8-4-2020 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-4-2020 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 The first consideration undoubtedly is to be able to defend ourselves. On this point I

44 Sir RICHARD BAKER: There is the danger of the powers overlapping.

53 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: But it might travel!

5 [start page 677]

48 Mr. Symon: That would be in conflict with the constitution!

8-4-2020 Page 10 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

48 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: There is no doubt about that!

8-4-2020 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

32 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: I am quite satisfied!

39 [start page 1065]

44 Sub-clause 1 agreed to.

52 [start page 1073]

8-4-2020 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3 The Hon. Dr. COCKBURN: What about the quarantine of dogs?

17 Sub-clause 11 agreed to.

31 Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not clause 105 answer that objection?

34 Mr. ISAACS.-And saying what shall happen if they do.

38 Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not know that it is.

39 Mr. SYMON.-I think it is an interference.

8-4-2020 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

8-4-2020 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. HOLDER.-It is a half-way-house to complete federation.

11 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

8-4-2020 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen