110908-Premier Ted Baillieu-Re State Land Tax - Freedom of Speech - Infringement

1
Mr Ted Baillieu Premier 5

ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
.
8-9-2011
10
Cc: * OFerrall Premier <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au> * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745 * Civic Compliance Victoria GPO Box 1916, Melbourne VIC 3001 Traffic_Inquiries@tenixsolutions.com * Mr Grey Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria Ground Floor, 277 William Street Melbourne Vic 3000 C/o help@magistratescourt.vic.gov.au
.
15
Re: State Land Tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH INFRINGEMENT NOTICE etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
.
20
25
Ted, according to my records I did forward to you various copies of correspondences regarding the purported State Land Taxes, and will quote below documents, in case they were lost from your files, as after all we wouldnt want you to be so disorganised to not knowing what is going on, would we? Also, because I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST I do research matters on basis of the constitution and this frequently land me in U.S.A. Authorities (judicial decisions) albeit I do consider obviously the different applications as the U.S.A. constitution is not always as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) with its intend. As I am currently battling the courts to ensure there is a separation of power between the legislators, the executives (that is the government) and the judiciary in regarding an infringement notice I find to deal with this briefly as to it causing me to research FREEDOM OF SPEECH also and how this applied to the Commonwealth of Australia and so the States also, and hence my recording of actions by Authorities is lawful. Such as the wheel-clamping of vehicles, etc. One of the many documents I came across with claiming that there is no constitutional right as to FREEDOM OF SPEECH had some of the following quotations: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm QUOTE
30
35
40
The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.
END QUOTE http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm QUOTE 45

Freedom of Speech and a Bill of Rights Proposals for legislating for freedom of speech have been made mainly in the context of legislating for a Bill of Rights. Since 1973 at the Commonwealth level there have been attempts to legislate for a Bill of Rights which would incorporate provisions of the ICCPR, including Article 19, into Australian law. Various governments, parliamentary parties and individual members of parliament have introduced legislation to establish a statutory
8-9-2011 Page 1 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
Bill of Rights, which would include the right to freedom of speech. (11) While lacking constitutional force, such an Act of Parliament would list various rights which could be enforced in the courts in many situations. The less complicated option of legislation, rather than amending the Constitution, has been preferred by proponents of a Bill of Rights.
END QUOTE http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm QUOTE
10
7. Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1; Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106; Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (19931994) 182 CLR 104; Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1993-1994) 182 CLR 211; Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1993-1994) 182 CLR 272; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579.
15
END QUOTE Having checked some of the material referred to it becomes very clear that the judges are referring to all kinds of other judgments and providing their own contemporary views but do not appear to rely upon the embedded legal principles that actually were all along available for them to consider. As such, the general assumption by this is enforced ongoing that the constitution doesnt provide for any FREEDOM OF SPEECH even so it is actually an embedded legal principle in the constitution. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution also made clear to rely upon the FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. And as the Framers of the Constitution themselves made abundantly clear;
.
20
25
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE
.
30
35
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE
.
40
45
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE
.
50
55
Below I will list numerous quotations which will indicate that apart from the FREEDOM of Trade and commerce the constitution was actually based upon being a liberal constitution where the rights and liberties of the constitution would exceed that of any other constitution and clearly where the framers of the constitution knew about the U.S.A. constitution and its Amendments to guarantee FREEDOM OF SPEECH, etc, then on the basis of that the English legal provisions such as common law were all embedded in the constitution then one has to ask why on earth the high Court of Australia so often strayed in its decisions not to simply go to the root of the creation of the constitution and acknowledge that the Framers of the Constitution indeed embedded the legal principle in the constitution of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? Effectively by the Framers of the Constitution not listing it as a power the
3 Commonwealth couldnt legislate in regard of it, neither could it be subjected to contemporary interpretations because as an embedded legal principle it has to be interpreted to how the Framers of the constitution intended it and not otherwise.
.
10
15
20
The legal principles of CIVIL RIGHTS, common law, etc one also then must consider as to the States usage of Infringement Notices which clearly defies all of this to have some judicial system as a STAR CHAMBER COURT sitting in judgment without any OPEN COURT hearing to issue court orders without any trial to find persons guilty of alleged offences because the Infringement Registrar is bound to accept the alleged evidence of the enforcement agency without hearing both parties. It violates the separation of powers between the legislators, the executives and the judiciary as the court no longer retains the freedom to consider all relevant evidence of both parties, as is the embedded legal principle in the constitution, but now must issue orders on basis of totally untested allegations no matter how flimsy and without any credibility the allegations were made. Indeed, disregarding any proper rule of due process such as dealing with any OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION that may be made by a person against an Infringement Notice and then the court proceeds as a KANGAROO COURT not having invoked any jurisdiction. While the States are entitled to legislate as to judicial processes t they must however do so in the spirit of the constitution and its embedded legal principles where the States are created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution.
.
25
30
As Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues there then can be no doubt that I am in the position to make recordings of police or others in the execution of their enforcement, well what purports to be enforcement, so I can expose it all. The FREEDOM OF SPEECH clause of the First Amendment of the U.S.A. constitution actually is embedded in our constitution just that most people are totally unaware of this. And this then brings us back also as to the purported STATE LAND TAXES which I consider is nothing less than government sponsored terrorism upon land holders and not warranted by the RULE OF LAW of which the constitution is the primary source of any RULE OF LAW.
.
35
40
45
50
The High Court of Australia did make its ruling that once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to income tax then the states had to retire from this. The same is applicable where the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to land taxes and created on 11 November 1910 the Land Tax Office, then from that time the States no longer could legislate as to land taxes as it become an EXCLUSIVE federal legislative power (see correspondences quoted below for the various relevant quotations.). therefore the issue is and must be paramount to anything being considered is where the Commonwealth abolished land taxes did then, as the State of N.S.W. claims the powers return to the States? I do not know of any constitutional provision that permits this. But you can always point out where in the constitution it is allegedly stated, not that I seek to imply it exist! I accept that the Commonwealth could have legislated to allow the States on behalf of the Commonwealth to collect land taxes but such collection of land taxes should have been at a uniform tariff throughout the Commonwealth because it being a Commonwealth exclusive power which the states then would apply. There is no reversal of legislative powers from the Commonwealth to the states merely that the Commonwealth may abolish any legislation because the abolition of any legislation doesnt prevent anyone still to rely upon the past legislation and continue to do so unless and until legislation is enacted to nullify the effects of such legislation altogether. Therefore the abolition of the land taxes by the Commonwealth essentially amount to the Commonwealth making clear it opposes any form of land taxes to be applied. The States then cannot willy nilly enact their own State land Taxes (under whatever name they may use to create it) as the Commonwealth
4 exclusive powers were invoked when it commenced to legislate for land taxes and it is not reversible within the provisions of the constitution.
.
It is an absurdity for any State government to claim that somehow mysteriously legislative powers was returned without having any constitutional provisions to rely upon this. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I know of no provision for the States to rely upon and indeed the Framers of the constitution expressed views were that once it becomes federal it became exclusive powers.
.
10
Upon this basis it is my view that the States MUST refund all collected land taxes collected since 1956 or whatever other date a State may have commenced to collect the unconstitutional land taxes.
.
15
20
25
30
Even an amendment to the Constitution to allow for a reversal of legislative powers from the Commonwealth to the states cannot cover past unconstitutional collected land taxes because the Framers of the constitution opposed retrospective legislation that effectively causes a person to become a criminal who acted at the time in a lawful manner. Because many a person opposed paying State land taxes but had even their property sold as result to force ahead with the collection of state land taxes then clearly their rights are to be compensated for this unconstitutional conduct perpetrated against them. Indeed any Minister and official who continues to persist with collecting the unconstitutional State land taxes by this can be personally sued as they cannot hide behind their offices protection because they are not acting within the legal ambit of their profession nor can be deemed to do so where they deliberately defy the provisions of the constitution. Indeed by holding them legally accountable they may just in future be more aware to ensure they act lawfully and a warning to others that if you ignore constitutional limits then you will be personally liable for any harm you cause upon any other person. The RULE OF LAW must apply to ministers as much as to Officials acting for them to ensure they are not hiding behind their offices and rely upon taxpayers forking out monies for their defence where they should have been aware or could have been aware that their conduct was without legal sanction.
.
35
40
45
When you have an Infringement Registrar blatantly ignoring the Imperial Act Interpretation act 1980 (Vic) as to the STAR CHAMBER COURT system being outlawed and nevertheless persist in his conduct to cause motorist even to lose their licences, etc, and others like the police participate in this elaborate rot then they must all be held legally accountable and be sued in their personal position without the protection of their positions because they are and should have been aware of were acting outside the RULE OF LAW. It never should be acceptable that an Infringement Registrar causes the loss of licences to people and by this may destroy their livelihood, etc, and then seek to hide behind the protection of immunity because such a conduct clearly cannot be condoned and is against the interest of the general community. It doesnt matter if the Infringement Registrar actually speaks with any other person as he should be aware that to work with the allegations of the enforcement agency by purportedly issuing a administrative order which however implies a finding of guilt and as such is actually a judicial determination without providing for a judicial decision after hearing both parties then this Infringement Registrar must be deemed to conspire with the enforcement agency to have perverted the course of JUSTICE.
.
50
An Infringement Registrar as an OFFICER OF THE COURT must be deemed to have at least a basic understanding that you cannot issue orders against a party without having heard the party first against which the order is issued unless this party deliberately failed to appear. .
5 Democracy exist only if the courts ensure proper application of legal provisions that are within the context of the constitution and disregard any purported legal provision that is outside constitutional legislative ;powers. The moment the courts resort to willy nilly enforce legislation regardless of being unconstitutional then the courts no longer are operating within the constitutional context they are created to uphold and are therefore becoming tools for terrorism upon the very society it is to serve.
.
10
Riots and other events that result to overthrow of government often is because those in power and those in the courts have for too long stood there doing nothing to stop the injustice. Often their kind of treason amounted to the fact that they were more interested in trying to secure their own job and the monetary benefits of it then to ensure that they acted within a democratic concept as permitted by the constitution.
.
15
With the Dr Haneef and Vivian Alvarez Solon cases we had somehow confidential settlements where the very Ministers who acted unlawful are shielded from any personal responsibility even so it is them who should have been paying the damages and not the taxpayers!
.
20
25
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE
.
The very purpose of having a RESPONSIBLE Minister is so that the minister and the minister alone would be responsible and if acting outside the RULE OF LAW he/she can cop it.
.
30
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
35
It would be preferable to make the Commonwealth responsible for the whole service, for by that means you would much more clearly conserve the interests of every member of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
40
It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of the vehicles which carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care and [start page 769] management of the vehicles or ways which carry letters and telegrams. 45
END QUOTE
.
50
55
The responsibility of a responsible Minister lies for all that goes on within the Department and a so called civil servant Department head cannot and shouldnt be accountable to the parliament because that is why we have a Minister for. The Minister rather than spending his/her time for photo opportunities, going on junk trips, etc, simply should attend to the organisation and any restructuring that might be needed (when taking office) so that the Department(s) under his/her control function appropriately and not that a minister is blaming whomever regardless of the number of the deaths of the public that may eventuate in the process (SUCH AS THE DISSASTEROUS UNCONSTIOTUTIONAL INSULATION DPROGRAM).
.
6 The whole notion of responsible government and responsible Minister appears to be nonexisting and we find that instead of transparency to what is going on every politician once in power will do if not the same then worse than his/her predecessor. We need transparency and we must stop this abuse of FOI (Freedom of Information Act) to hide sensitive details as Ministers must be clear about it that if they are to serve the general community and not just their own indulgent then they must not hide behind FOI to conceal their wrongdoings but must be honest about it. We all make errors at times and the public will forgive an honest person having made an error but they do not like the conspiracy to pervert JUSTICE and by being elected upon promises then ignored once elected. Riots and other agitation are the product of ongoing deception by those in power and therefore the best way to avoid riots and other agitation is to prove, yes prove, to the community one serve as agents that one act in a transparent manner free from deception, concealment, etc.
.
10
15
20
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
.
25
30
In my view we should go back to the era where representing the people was a matter of Honour and so reduce the scale of allowance for Members of Parliament to the average weekly income and no further perks. Then we may just get politicians who will be in touch with the financial struggle for survival as most people in the community have to do. No more the nonsense of a about 15% increases well beyond the CPI (Consumer Price Index) as my recent water bill proved to include, despite it is unconstitutional as it is against federal policy as it ties pensions and other welfare payments to the CPI increases. No more under-hands taxation included in a water bill not related to water supply at all but to fund multimillion dollar buildings that then are rented out for a mere $1 a year to a religious body.
.
35
We need a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to the true meaning and application of the constitution so that everyone concerned will be able to know and understand what is really applicable.
.
40
45
Parliament is not, albeit it is currently so, for politicians to indulge themselves with perks and all kinds of after parliament extras regardless this is totally unconstitutional. What we need is some gutsy premier who will stand out and stop the rot and make clear that from now on Law & Order will be what is constitutionally applicable and permissible and not in extravange of this. We must stop the bleeding of our farmers, growers manufacturing industries, etc, and we can only achieve this is we finally can get someone who will act not to his/her own selfish interest but to what a democracy is about and that means true representation for the people by the people. No more gangster like conduct during elections (as eventuated during the 2010 Victorian State Election) to ensure that certain members of political parties are elected as this too defies what democracy is about.
.
50
Our current democratic system has a growing cancer that defies belief and all we seem to have is newly elected politicians who are contributing their bit to make it worse rather then to address the issues needed to be attended to.
.
Below are quotations that will show support for the above stated and also will include correspondences to which you already had been provided copies. It also includes correspondence regarding Mr J. M. Abbott regarding his land tax taxation refund claim.
QUOTE 16-2-2011 EMAIL 10.02AM

From: Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com>
To: Peter Geffroy <peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au> Cc: Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:02 am Subject: Fwd: see attachment 110207-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc.doc Attachments: Text version of this message. (2KB)
110207-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc.pdf (352KB) (199B)
Hello Peter, I am sorry I didn't send this to you earlier my computer has been in for repairs, I am sending you this email and another will follow shortly showing a reply from the Premier & Cabinet by David Swain dated 9-2-11. Now this is been going on since August/September last year,I am still waiting for a response from the Premier or the Hon Eric Roozendaal MLC. So until we have a clear answer on the question raised regarding Unconstitutional State Land taxes . I ask you to STOP all actions by your office so far and further correspondence in relation to Unconstitutional State Land Taxes. If you are not sure on what to do,I suggest you contact David Swain, or the Hon Eric Roozendaal MLC for the information that we are also seeking. regards Robert Pincevic. Begin forwarded message:
From: "G. H. Schorel-Hlavka" <schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com> Date: 7 February 2011 1:29:26 PM AEDT To: thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au Cc: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au, peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au Subject: see attachment 110207-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc.doc Reply-To: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
Premier Kristina Keneally 7-2-2011<thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>. Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745 . Re: State Land tax - etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN . Kristina,
see attachment 110207-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc.doc . Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka 8-9-2011 Page 7 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
C/o
8
. 7-2-2011
(Snail) Mail to: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, Vic 3084, Australia Email: inspector-rikati@schorel-hlavka.com See also Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati (Also to download documents) & Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com CONSTITUTIONALIST & Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues. . Reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights and hold parliamentarians and judges legally accountable. . A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE! . INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really. A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 . Notification: THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS FORWARDED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Self-Help for Pro Se and Pro Per Litigants - Lawsuit Self-Help Step-by-Step Jurisdictionary END QUOTE 16-2-2011 EMAIL 10.02AM QUOTE 16-2-2011 EMAIL 10.05AM
From: Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com>
To: Peter Geffroy <peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au> Cc: Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:05 am Subject: Fwd: See response Premier Kristine Keneally re unconstitutional State land Taxes. Attachments: Text version of this message. (405B)
acknowledgement.pdf (250KB) (188B)
Hello Peter, Here is the latest reply from the Premier& Cabinet Office. for your records. regards Robert.
-----Original Message----8-9-2011 Page 8 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
9 From: The Premier of NSW [mailto:premier@nsw.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 12:07 PM To: schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com Subject: Re: see attachment 110207-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX etc.doc Please see attached letter. END QUOTE 16-2-2011 EMAIL 10.05AM
10
. 5 The following relates to NSW correspondences also albeit copies were also forwarded the Victorian government from time to time as can be noted in the headings. QUOTE correspondence 110705-SRO-Ian Low-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
11
State Revenue Office C/o Mr Ian Low Email: sro.vic.gov.au
5-7-2011
10
15
Ref Mr John Abbott Customer No. 4727794 Sir, I direct myself to you in regard of what I understand to be a gross misconception and misunderstanding on your behalf as to how the constitution applies. I do not represent Mr John Abbott (I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and not a lawyer!) but merely provide this set out to assist the parties in seeking to resolve their dispute. I am well aware that a grave problem with legal studies is that aspiring lawyers are not properly educated into constitutional matters and as such are pursuing enforcement of legislative provisions unaware that it is at times unconstitutional. Because the State Land Tax issue also is pursued such as in NSW I will below quote a recent correspondence to the then premier of NSW Kristine Keneally, where her Minister strangely claimed some return of powers that isnt constitutionally possible!
.
QUOTE 2-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
20
Contact Name : Ian Low Telephone (03) 9628 6846 Facsimile (03) 9628 6856 Customer No. 4727794
STATE REVENUE OFFICE VICTORIA www.sro.vic.gov.au
25
2 June 2011
30
Mr John Abbott 1 Piccolo Street COOMERA WATERS QLD 4209 Dear Mr Abbott
35
Thank you for your correspondence dated 22 February and 11 April 20ll in which you claim a refund of Land Tax paid from 2001 lo 2009 (inclusive), based upon constitutional grounds. Under the Commonwealth Constitution the power of taxation vested in the Federal Parliament is not exclusive except in relation to duties of customs and excise. The States possess a concurrent and independent power of levying tax within their jurisdiction. As under the Constitution by virtue of the previous imposition of land tax by the Commonwealth, and your application for a refund has been refused. Yours sincerely Ian Low Delegate of the Commissioner of State Revenue Operating Strategy and data Improvement END QUOTE 2-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE 8-9-2011 Page 11 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
40
45
50
12 It is important to consider that the following correspondence was part of a series of writings and so is not intended and must not be perceived to relate to all details/issues and neither in any order of priority and other correspondence can be obtained upon request to me for so far I elect to prove them. QUOTE 8-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>
.
8-3-2011
10
Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au * Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue C/o peter.geffroy@osr.nsw.gov.au * Mr Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
.
Re: State Land tax - etc 15

.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Kristina, your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
20
25
QUOTE CMU10-16940 13 September 2010 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax. As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention. You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration. Yours sincerely David Swain for Director General END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45
50
55
I received on 8-3-2011 a response dated 2-3-2011 from Barry Collier MP Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer he responded. Section 107 he refers to is very clear that for example Income Tax albeit was a Colonial and later State legislative power the moment the Commonwealth legislated upon Income Tax then the power became an exclusive Commonwealth power and the States had to retire from this. Once it became an exclusive power then the constitution doesnt permit it to return to become a concurrent power, as I have set out in past correspondence. The legislative powers on the particular field is forever an exclusive power of the Commonwealth! In regard of the State Land Taxes the same applies. Once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Land taxes then it became by this an exclusive legislative power and as such the State no longer had concurrent legislative powers on Land taxes matters. The States were created out of the former colonies and as s.106 of the (federal) constitution makes clear subject to this constitution and this clearly provides in s51 for concurrent legislative powers to become exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers. It is not relevant if the Commonwealth, as like with the 1952 abolition land taxes were to abolish income tax because it would still remain an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As for s5 of the Constitution Act 1992 (NSW) it cannot override any Commonwealth exclusive powers and as it clearly is subject to the Commonwealth constitution it therefore cannot be perceived it somehow gives legislative powers no longer permissible by the Commonwealth Constitution to be exercisable by a state.
13
Critical might be the claim:

QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 13 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
14
Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the federal level in 1910. In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This did not have the effect of preventing the States from imposing land tax, but rather returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW Government introduced the land Management Act in 1956. END QUOTE
10
15
Obviously, contrary to what was claimed by Barry Collier MP the Commonwealth Government has no constitutional powers to abolish any legislation as it being the Executive it can refuse to enforce legislative provisions but cannot abolish an act of Parliament. As such it is the Commonwealth Parliament that can only abolish legislation. What may be noted is the wording but rather returned taxation powers back to them as such this is a concession that in fact since 1910 land taxes were an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. The question then is how does one return a legislative power to any State, not just NSW, where the Constitution never provided for this? Clearly Barry Collier MP didnt clarifyy within what constitutional powers, if any, a reversal of legislative power could eventuate and quite frankly the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a legislative power was a Commonwealth legislative power then this was the end of the States dealing with the subject.
. Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE . Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform. END QUOTE And Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The 8-9-2011 Page 14 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
55
15
Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision. END QUOTE And Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved. END QUOTE Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one state to another; END QUOTE Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form. What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real logical position. END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform. END QUOTE
.
16 It should be clear that a UNIFORM law under the Commonwealth cannot somehow revert back to a non-uniform law merely because of the States desiring to pursue their own kind of land taxation. As such, on this basis also the State land taxes are floored (and so also any Territorial land taxes). .
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid. They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
As I previously indicated the Commonwealth could have allowed the States to collect under its authority land taxes but it still would have to be uniform through the Commonwealth and as such all States and Territories (quasi States) would be bound to have the same land taxes application and not different rates. This then would clearly be a waste of exercise as why allow different States/Territories to collect taxes when one federal office can do the same? The issue then is of the Commonwealth somehow could enact legislation to retrospective provide for legislation for the States/Territories to have collected land taxes on its behalf. Again, the first hurdle is that retrospective legislation would be invalid where so to say it makes the conduct of a honest man to be a criminal conduct. Further, where the States raised different levels of land taxes then it cannot be uniform. One couldnt accept that a person of one State having paid less then in another State now suddenly was to pay more by some kind of retrospective legislation and neither that some who paid more now were going to receive a refund of any land taxes paid above that of other States. After all commercial entities are based upon overhead cost, including land taxes, etc, and as such a business enterprise might be determined where the lowest taxation is available. Changing the system after the contracts are already in operation would make a mockery of the reliability of State provisions. I have indicated for years that what is needed is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN which would advise the government, the parliament, the people and the Courts as to constitutional meanings and application as a constitutional council. This is what is missing in Australia and as result we have sport stars and singers and whatever elected to the parliament and basically no one understands let alone comprehend the meaning and application of the constitutions.
.
It is obviously of concern to me that it took a massive 6 month period (from 31 August 2010 till 2 March 2011) to present this kind of response that doesnt appear to me to indicate to be any well researched response.
.
40
Obviously I will pass on the 2-3-2011 response and my reply to those concerned with the issue.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!

.
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

.
Our name is our motto!

. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit) END QUOTE 8-3-2011 CORRESPONDENCE QUOTE 7-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
50
17 Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

.
7-2-2011
.
Re: State Land tax - etc 10

.
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Kristina, your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
15
20
.
25
30
35
Regretfully since then despite further subsequent correspondences nothing was heard about it other then that I have become aware that Peter Geffroy of State Revenue Office appears to disregard the proper consideration and persist with assessments irrespective of the issue that State parliaments since 1910 have no constitutionally permissible legislative powers as to raise land taxes since it became an exclusive federal power in 1910.
.
40
QUOTE Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration) Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient in law. END QUOTE
.
45
50
55
It appears to me that You can be sure your letter will receive close consideration. then must imply that before the State Revenue Office can pursue any assessment as to properties owned by the Pincevics then such due and proper consideration is given in regard of if the State does or doesnt have any constitutionally permissible land tax legislative powers. In all fairness to the Pincevis the issue was raised by me way back on 31 August 2010 well before the State Revenue Office purportedly issued its client ID 41494706 (correspondence ID 1539644953) & ID 4345407 (correspondence ID 1539640597) Land Tax Assessment Notices and as such the Pincevicas are entitled to be given a proper explanation what was actually considered and if the issue of the lack of legislative powers regarding State Land Taxes was not considered then the Land Tax Assessment Notice would fail as it omitted proper consideration of all relevant issues. . I have obtained a copy of a 13 January 2011 correspondence from the Office of state Revenue and contrary to your office response stating You can be sure your letter will receive close
18 consideration. Nothing in the correspondence seems to me even remotely refer to the issues raised in my n31 August 2010 and further correspondences. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear all and any taxes unconstitutionally extracted from a tax payer must be refunded. Hence, any State land Taxes the State of NSW so far charged and had paid from the Pincevics should be refunded. . The State of NSW also should be aware that if this case were to go for litigation in the courts then where the courts to uphold the claim that the States since 1910 no longer had legislative powers to apply land taxes then this will be a considerable billion dollar issue. Do you really desire to have this case to be litigated as such?
.
10
15
Kikonda Butema Farms Ltd v The Inspector General of Government HCT-00-CV-MA-593-2003 QUOTE Constitution needles to mention is a supreme law of the land. END QUOTE
.
20
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. END QUOTE
. 25
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a 8-9-2011 Page 18 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
30
35
40
45
50
55
19
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE
.
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax10
tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm QUOTE 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
15
END QUOTE And

QUOTE The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. END QUOTE Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE .
50
It is therefore clear that when the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Land Taxes in 1910 then that so to say spelled the end of the States to legislate as such. The fact that the Commonwealth abolished land taxes in 1952 itself didnt alter the fact that it had become an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As such the 1956 State land Taxes legislation and any subsequent amendments to it all are and remain to be unconstitutional.
.
55
60
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 19 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
20
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE
.
10
The Framers of the Constitution also embedded the legal principle in the constitution (out of which within s.106 the States were created from the colonies):
.
15
Hansard 2-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. END QUOTE
.
20
25
Obviously both Mr Robert Pincevic and his father Mr Anton Pincevic have urged me to follow up the matter in view that your Department is still pestering them about State land taxes. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionally appropriate and for this directed myself to you. I intend to publish a copy of this correspondence on the Internet so that you might be aware that I will disclose details to others so they may seek to use it to their advantage to combat any unconstitutional State land tax. I have provided the email address of Mr Robert Pincevic also (above) so you can also respond to him and his father directly.
.
30
For the above I duo urge you to ensure that the State Land Tax Office immediately withdraw all and any Assessment notices and do consider the issue of constitutional validity of State land taxes and to give the Pincevics a proper response if it holds the legislation to be valid or not and upon what consideration. After all litigation may attract more attention to other land tax assessed land holders then the State may desire, in particular where it were to end up being an adverse decision to the State of NSW.
.
35

.

.

. 40 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit) END QUOTE 7-2-2011 CORRESPONDENCE
.
45
50
It appears to me from your writings of your 2 June 2011 correspondence to Mr John Abbott that you lack any proper understanding of the true meaning and application of the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) and that appears to me to be a very serious defect in your education/understanding that robs taxpayers of their constitutional and other legal rights. As I have canvassed in my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues that what is needed is the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) a constitutional council that advises the Government, the People, the parliament and the Courts about the true meaning and application of the constitution within witch within s106 the States were created subject to this constitution.
21 While it is for you to decide if you do desire to become competent in constitutional matters or not I do urge you to refrain from expressing views about the constitution where this wrongly robs a person of his legal entitlements as at the very least Mr John Abbott was entitled to a competent response based upon the true meaning and application of the constitution!
.
As the High Court of Australia in HCA27 of 1999 (Wakim) made clear there is no estoppel against the constitution and as such there can be no time limit against the constitutional objection by Mr John Abbott and his rights to obtain his refunds.
.
10
15
QUOTE Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE
.
20
We all make errors and I recognise you may have done so likewise, being it by the lack of proper education about constitutional issues or otherwise, but it can never be an excuse to rob a person of his constitutional so his legal rights.
.
25
As was recently made known during my weekly radio program about constitutional matters by Anastasia that when one refers to the constitution in the courts the judges will dismiss this as not being relevant. Now, one must be a complete moron to hold the constitution doesnt apply to the courts where not a single court can operate but by the powers provided for within the constitution. As such those lawyers parading as judges/magistrates who discount the application of the constitution have placed themselves above the constitution and so the RULE OF LAW and to me this is treason.
QUOTE Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE
.
30
35
QUOTE Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.
40
QUOTE Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. OCONNOR.In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. END QUOTE
.
45
50
QUOTE Hansard 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. O'CONNOR: The very principle of the Federal Constitution is this: that the Constitution is above both Houses of Parliament. That is the difference between it and our Houses of Parliament now. The Federal Parliament must be above both Houses of Parliament, and they must conform to it, because it is in the charter under which union takes place, and the guarantee of rights under which union takes place; and, unless you have some authority for them to interpret [start page 592] that, what guarantee have you for preserving their rights at all. ENDQUOTE
.
QUOTE Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. THYNNE: I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
55
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution. 8-9-2011 Page 21 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
22
END QUOTE
.
10
15
QUOTE Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. THYNNE: The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority. END QUOTE
.
20
Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY: I beg to propose that the following resolution stand as resolution No. 5:The inhabitants of each of the states of federated Australasia ought to be allowed to choose, and if they see fit from time to time to vary, the form of state government under which they desire to live. Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution. END QUOTE
.
25
QUOTE Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
30
35
Dr. COCKBURN: I think we have nothing whatever to do with deciding the details of the state constitutions. On the other hand, I think it appertains to the functions of this Convention to decide that the power of framing a constitution shall be in the hands of the several states. At present the legislatures of the various colonies can only be altered with the consent of the Imperial Government. Is it intended that that shall remain? When we have a federated Australasia, in which we have state legislatures and a federal legislature, is it intended that the state legislatures shall have the power of altering their constitutions at will or not? From that point of view I think the proposition put forward by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, is decidedly within the powers of the Convention, the power to lay down a general rule, without touching the details of any individual constitution, that the various states should have the power of framing their own constitutions according to the will of the majority of the people of those states. END QUOTE
.
40
45
Again (RE Section 123); QUOTE Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Sir GEORGE GREY: Provision should therefore be made in the federal constitution which will [start page 478] enable the people of each state to adopt by the vote of the majority of voters, their own form of state constitution. END QUOTE
.
50
QUOTE Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. SYMON: It cannot possibly extend the operation of our laws generally one atom further than the constitutional law will permit. END QUOTE
.
55
60
QUOTE HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in 8-9-2011 Page 22 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
23
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates The Hon. A. DEAKIN: I say the great bulk of them are of that character, and am open to refutation if I am wrong, I should say that the whole of the thirty-seven subjects, but, indisputably, the great bulk of them, are subjects on which no question of state rights and state interests could arise except by the merest accident. It is, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, a grave defect in our constitution if we permit these questions to be left for all time to be determined in a purely states house, or by a state referendum, when those questions are not state questions-when they ought to be decided, not on state lines, but on national lines, and by a national referendum. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE
.
What therefore is required to be established is if the State had in the first place any legislative powers since 11 November 1910 for State land Taxes. If it is found, such as the Income Tax legislative issue, that indeed the States no longer possessed this legislative powers since 111
24 November 1910 then as set out above it was the end of this kind of State Land Tax legislative power. While the then NSW Government relies upon a return of legislative power this simply is not feasible within the structure of the constitution! 5
QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
As a candidate in recent elections I very much promoted that State Land Taxes are unconstitutional! While I can accept (as made known above) that a person my by lack of education or otherwise misconceive/misunderstand what is constitutionally permissible it is however no excuse to rob in the process a person of a tax refund. And, if at least you are or may become competent in constitutional matters then I expect you will set out in future how you argue, if you still maintain the same position as to constitutional validity of State land Taxes, any such legislative powers were returned, where the constitution itself doesnt provide for it.
QUOTE Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. 30

END QUOTE
35
40
For the record Premier Ted Baillieu was provided with correspondence to the NSW Premier (as she then was).Kristine Keneally and therefore I would have expected that you would have been fully aware of the issues and to me this underlines rather what might be described as a failure in internal communications as if the State Revenue Office was kept unaware of my writings preceding your 2 June 2011 correspondence then all those taxpayers still being slugged by unconstitutional State land Taxes are not at all provided with the Law & Order government that Premier Ted Baillieu so much promised during his election campaign! Who then can you trust, I may ask? The limited set out above is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all details/issues but should at the least ensure that you will reconsider matters and indeed the issue of State land Taxes and why on earth this was never appropriately considered from onset considering so many lawyers are in the Parliament and/or engaged by the government? EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!
.
45

.

. 50 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
25
END QUOTE correspondence 110705-SRO-Ian Low-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc QUOTE correspondence 100831-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

.
8-3-2011
10
.
Re: State Land tax - etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

.
Kristina, 15 your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes:
.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
I received on 8-3-2011 a response dated 2-3-2011 from Barry Collier MP Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer he responded. Section 107 he refers to is very clear that for example Income Tax albeit was a Colonial and later State legislative power the moment the Commonwealth legislated upon Income Tax then the power became an exclusive Commonwealth power and the States had to retire from this. Once it became an exclusive power then the constitution doesnt permit it to return to become a concurrent power, as I have set out in past correspondence. The legislative powers on the particular field is forever an exclusive power of the Commonwealth! In regard of the State Land Taxes the same applies. Once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to Land taxes then it became by this an exclusive legislative power and as such the State no longer had concurrent legislative powers on Land taxes matters. The States were created out of the former colonies and as s.106 of the (federal) constitution makes clear subject to this constitution and this clearly provides in s51 for concurrent legislative powers to become exclusive Commonwealth legislative powers. It is not relevant if the Commonwealth, as like with the 1952 abolition land taxes were to abolish income tax because it would still remain an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. As for s5 of the Constitution Act 1992 (NSW) it cannot override any Commonwealth exclusive powers and as it clearly is subject to the Commonwealth constitution it therefore cannot be perceived it somehow
26 gives legislative powers no longer permissible by the Commonwealth Constitution to be exercisable by a state.
27 Critical might be the claim:

QUOTE Land taxes were imposed by the States prior to federation. They were introduced at the federal level in 1910. In 1952, the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax. This did not have the effect of preventing the States from imposing land tax, but rather returned taxation powers back to them. Accordingly, the NSW Government introduced the land Management Act in 1956. END QUOTE
10
15
Obviously, contrary to what was claimed by Barry Collier MP the Commonwealth Government has no constitutional powers to abolish any legislation as it being the Executive it can refuse to enforce legislative provisions but cannot abolish an act of Parliament. As such it is the Commonwealth Parliament that can only abolish legislation. What may be noted is the wording but rather returned taxation powers back to them as such this is a concession that in fact since 1910 land taxes were an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power. The question then is how does one return a legislative power to any State, not just NSW, where the Constitution never provided for this? Clearly Barry Collier MP didnt clarifyy within what constitutional powers, if any, a reversal of legislative power could eventuate and quite frankly the Framers of the Constitution made clear that once a legislative power was a Commonwealth legislative power then this was the end of the States dealing with the subject.
. Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GORDON.The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." END QUOTE . Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear. The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform. END QUOTE And Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 27 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
28
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury will be avoided. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision. END QUOTE And Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the states for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved. END QUOTE Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: 2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from one state to another; END QUOTE Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form. What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real logical position. END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get 8-9-2011 Page 28 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
29
into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform. END QUOTE
. It should be clear that a UNIFORM law under the Commonwealth cannot somehow revert back to a non-uniform law merely because of the States desiring to pursue their own kind of land taxation. As such, on this basis also the State land taxes are floored (and so also any Territorial land taxes). .
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take the law and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid. They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the law was passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
. As I previously indicated the Commonwealth could have allowed the States to collect under its authority land taxes but it still would have to be uniform through the Commonwealth and as such all States and Territories (quasi States) would be bound to have the same land taxes application and not different rates. This then would clearly be a waste of exercise as why allow different States/Territories to collect taxes when one federal office can do the same? The issue then is of the Commonwealth somehow could enact legislation to retrospective provide for legislation for the States/Territories to have collected land taxes on its behalf. Again, the first hurdle is that retrospective legislation would be invalid where so to say it makes the conduct of a honest man to be a criminal conduct. Further, where the States raised different levels of land taxes then it cannot be uniform. One couldnt accept that a person of one State having paid less then in another State now suddenly was to pay more by some kind of retrospective legislation and neither that some who paid more now were going to receive a refund of any land taxes paid above that of other States. After all commercial entities are based upon overhead cost, including land taxes, etc, and as such a business enterprise might be determined where the lowest taxation is available. Changing the system after the contracts are already in operation would make a mockery of the reliability of State provisions. I have indicated for years that what is needed is an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN which would advise the government, the parliament, the people and the Courts as to constitutional meanings and application as a constitutional council. This is what is missing in Australia and as result we have sport stars and singers and whatever elected to the parliament and basically no one understands let alone comprehend the meaning and application of the constitutions.
.
40
It is obviously of concern to me that it took a massive 6 month period (from 31 August 2010 till 2 March 2011) to present this kind of response that doesnt appear to me to indicate to be any well researched response.
.
45
Obviously I will pass on the 2-3-2011 response and my reply to those concerned with the issue.
.

.

.
50 .

30 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
END QUOTE correspondence 100831-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc QUOTE correspondence 100929-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
5 Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

.
31-8-2010
10
Cc: * Mr John Brumby, Premier, john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au * Mr Robert Pincevic

.
Re: State Land tax - etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 15 Kristina, I has been more then 4 weeks since I last wrote to you regarding State land taxes being unconstitutional since the Commonwealth of Australia commenced to legislate in regard of LAND TAX and the High Court of Australia underlined this in its judgment. As I stated in my previous 31 August 2010 correspondence to you; http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE
20
Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. 25
END QUOTE
.
Within Section 51 of the constitution both the States and the Commonwealth have certain legislative powers however as the Framers of the Constitution stated: 30
Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. REID
35
.
The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on themthe state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law.
END QUOTE Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.
40
45
50
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. 8-9-2011 Page 30 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
31
END QUOTE
.
10
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.
15
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. END QUOTE
20
For constitutional purposes it isnt relevant that the Commonwealth of Australia aborted any land taxes since 1952 by abolishing the legislation as it still was and remained to be an exclusive federal legislative power
.
I thank your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response: 25
.
30
35
40
As I stated in my previous correspondence also:

QUOTE
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionally appropriate and for this direct myself to you.
.
45
I do point out that I am not in any capacity acting for Mr Robert Pincevic but he is aware that I am writing to you and reveals his identity. I was contacted by Mr Robert Pincevic (NSW resident) regarding the 22 June 2010 Land Tax issue correspondence from Richard Brown for Tony Newbury Chief Commissioner of State Revenue correctly pointed out that within s.106 of the constitution (The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)), the States subject to this constitution are entitled to legislate in matters. I personally cannot see any difficulties then with any NSW legal provisions then to legislate in 1902 (provided the NSW constitution was validly amended) in regard of land taxes, however what Richard Brown seems to ignore is the very term subject to this constitution meaning that s.51 only permits the States to legislate as to Land Tax until the Commonwealth legislate for this and then the moment the Commonwealth does it no longer is a legislative power for the States. As such where the Commonwealth commenced to legislate and in 1910 became the dominant legislator I have the view that then the States no longer had this legislative power and the fact that the Commonwealth in 1952 abolished land taxes cannot revert the legislative powers back to the States as the constitution doesnt allow for this. END QUOTE
.
50
55
60
32 I am well aware that the Governments (State/Territorial/Federal) may seek to rely upon legal advice of lawyers who may or may not claim to be constitutionalist but the fact is that since 1956 none of them appeared to have understood that the States/Territories couldnt legislate as to LAND TAXES. This is because lawyers are so to say trained to think in a certain manner and this prohibit them to be open minded and consider all relevant issues, not just about State/Territorial land Taxes as for example the commonwealth in s.388 of the CEA1918 uses averment where as on 4 August 2005 I successfully defeated the commonwealth and the Court ordered the commonwealth to file and serve all evidence it sought to rely upon this as the court upheld my constitutional submission that the commonwealth cannot interfere in the legal processes of a State Court by dictating that AVERMENT applies. Actually the ATO uses averment in the Supreme Court of NSW even so as I stated this is unconstitutionally interfering in State judicial matters, regardless if the State Court exercises federal jurisdiction.
.
10
15
It is my understanding that the ATO in legal proceedings relies upon the Taxation Administration Act section 8ZL which is as follows:
QUOTE S.8ZL(1) [Prima facie evidence] In a prosecution for the prescribed taxation offence, a statement or averment contained in the information, claim or complaint is prima facie evidence of the matter so stated or averred. END QUOTE
.
20
25
QUOTE S.8ZL(2) [Application of section] This section applies in relation to any matter so stated or averred although: (a) evidence in support or rebuttal of the matter stated or averred, or of any other matter, is given; or (b) the matter averred is a mixed question of law and fact, but in that case, or of any other statement or averment is prima facie evidence if the fact only. END QUOTE
.
We now look brat the provision of the CEA1918; 30

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 QUOTE 388 Averments deemed to
be proved
35
.
In any prosecution in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of a contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations relating to compulsory enrolment or compulsory voting, instituted by an officer or by any person acting under the direction of an officer, the averments of the prosecutor contained in the information or complaint shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
END QUOTE
40
I understand that Raelene Susan Vivian Deputy Commissioner of Taxation filed a 1 May 2009 Affidavit (On 4 May 2009) in which she refers to:
QUOTE The plaintiff pleads her cause of action, and avers and states END QUOTE
.
45
These pleadings were then responded upon by the Respondents to in general deny the claims. In point 4 of this Affidavit it was stated
QUOTE The defendants failed to pay income tax for the years of tax ending 30 June 2002, 30 June 2003, 30 June 2004, 30 June 2006, 30 June 2007 and 30 June 2008 on or before the relevant due dates. END QUOTE
.
50
It is in my view terrible that even the Supreme Court of NSW isnt even aware that Commonwealth of Australia legislative provisions cannot interfere with State jurisdictional matters! 55
HANSARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 32 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
33
Mr. CLARK: What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain under their own governments. END QUOTE
.
10
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.Then, I think myself, some confusion may arise in consequence of the reference to the state in the words "Proceedings to be taken against the Commonwealth or a state in all cases within the limits of the judicial power." Now, it does not appear to me that we ought to interfere in any way with the functions of a state to regulate the proceedings which it, as a quasi-independent political entity, may prescribe for the regulation of its own legal proceedings. END QUOTE
.
15
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I obviously have to consider the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution where the ATO is about Income Tax of all sources, the same can be argued about the issue of the word INCOME:
Hansard 31-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir GEORGE TURNER: One might depend entirely on the other.
20
Mr. BARTON: That would not be a case of two separable propositions. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Take the Land and Income Tax Bill. Mr. BARTON: They are proposals which should never be in one Bill together. If there are two propositions more dissimilar in their incidence than a land and an income tax they are hard to suggest. One of them-the income tax-comes from the earnings or profits of the people, or of that portion of the people who, I was almost guilty of saying, are to "hump the swag"-at any rate they are to bear the burden. But the other-if a tax on the unimproved value of land-has no relation to the earnings or the thrift or the solvency of the person owning the land, and taxes that land on its unimproved value whether the owner makes a profit out of it or not. I am not attacking these forms of taxation, but I do say this: that it is impossible to imagine two taxes more diverse their very root, and I think Sir George Turner could not have selected a better example of two taxes which ought not to be included in one Bill. I venture to say this is undoubtedly cutting down the right of the Senate to protect the State, and preventing them from voting upon matters that should be put separately. I believe most of these matters have been well, and fairly dealt with in the Bill of 1891. END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
If therefore profits of land holdings is not an income and cannot be put in the one Bill then what is the Tax Assessment Act 1936 about, so the unconstitutional State land tax assessments? It should be noted; 40
Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).The words "trade and intercourse" are almost unbounded in their meaning when you apply them to the relations of trade and commerce, and, under the proper heads, Baker's Annotated Constitution is full of instances showing how far-reaching these words are. Then, take the words "throughout the Commonwealth." The meaning of those words is not restricted to between the states; they refer to every part of the Commonwealth, and I would refer honorable members to earlier portions of the Bill where the same meaning will have to be given to them. If honorable members will turn to clause 52, which deals with the powers of the Parliament, they will find that in sub-section (2) the Federal Parliament is empowered to legislate in regard to customs, excise, and bounties, which shall be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, within every state and every part of a state. "Throughout the Commonwealth" is the largest expression that can be used. In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
.
45
50
55
And while on this and any attempts by the states/Territories and/or even the Commonwealth to legislate retrospectively the following ought to be noted:
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates 8-9-2011 Page 33 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
34
QUOTE Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill, there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. The Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses. With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation of Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage: It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts, that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed. Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say. Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary. Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.-I have two interjections to answer. I will deal first with that of the Attorney-General of Victoria. In reply to his statement that this makes the law altogether retrospective, I simply say that the proposal is to make the law retrospective in this sense: That during the interval throughout which it was, according to the judgment of the court, ultra vires, the decision of the people afterwards could make it intra vires. Mr. ISAACS.-That might make persons criminals who were not otherwise criminals. It might not have been an offence to do a certain thing if the High Court declared the law to be ultra vires, but if that law was made intra vires from an antecedent date, all the persons who did that thing might be subject to punishment. END QUOTE
.
40
45
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.Unless the honorable member is willing to amend his clause in that respect, we should only complicate matters, and if retrospective operation were given to it we should be lending ourselves to what would be, quite unintentionally on the part of the honorable member, a gross injustice. END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
50
55
Mr. ISAACS.-But they have already passed a law, and I take it that if you can get an absolute majority of both Houses directing the referendum, there is no practical difference between that and an absolute majority again passing the law. Because they virtually passed the law as far as they could. Therefore, it seems to me there is no advantage gained from the stand-point of desiring a better means of getting an amendment of the Constitution. Then, I feet that it is open to the destructive criticism that it makes the law retrospective, and after the court, possibly the Privy Council, has decided that the law is ultra vires, and people have acted on that decision, being compelled to, act on that decision, or being compelled to refrain from acting on the decision of the court, as the law is positive or negative; then we should have under this referendum a law made operative as from the time of its original passing, and penalties, both personal and pecuniary, might be incurred through no fault of the individuals who had incurred them. That seems to me to be a defect to which we cannot close our eyes.
35
Mr. WISE.-Besides, it would punish everybody who took the advice of a man who interpreted the law properly. Mr. ISAACS.-It compels everybody who has obeyed the decision of the higher courts to act, or refrain from acting. That is a position which none of us would willingly get into, and the retrospective action is wrong. END QUOTE
.
10
I am concerned that despite my writing of 31 August 2010 I am given the understanding that the State of NSW State land Tax office nevertheless has persisted in proceedings with its conduct against the Pincevics even so it was also provided by Mr Robert Pincevic with a copy of my 31 August 2010 correspondence to you and the response of 13 September 2010 on your behalf.
.
15
20
25
I am well aware that State/Territorial land taxes involves an estimate $35 billion a year throughout the Commonwealth of Australia but in all fairness I have urged for many years for all Governments to consult the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN about constitutional matters and where then a State/Territory failed to do so then it has inflicted any harm upon not just itself but also to its residents. It cannot be any excuse therefore for any State/Territorial Government having to refund all unconstitutional claimed LAND TAXES as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any unconstitutional taxes had to be refunded. Neither can it be held that somehow the States/Territories were colleting LAND TAXES on behalf of the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth is bound to raise any taxes for the whole of the Commonwealth. As the States/Territories collected LAND TAXES in dependent of each other and as such no LAND TAX was equal throughout the Commonwealth of Australia then it cannot be deemed that the States/Territories therefore purportedly collected LAND TAXES on behalf of the Commonwealth.
.
Neither can the Commonwealth apply retrospective legislation as to try to secure past land taxes paid since 1952 as being Commonwealth land taxes.
.
30
Neither can the States/Territories invoke any kind of retrospective legislation because the states are within s.106 subject to this constitution and hence the legal principles embedded in the constitution are also binding upon the States/Territories.
.
35
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state, which, of course, stands in exactly the same position. END QUOTE
.
40
45
50
Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform. END QUOTE
.
55
Where the State land tax office is assessing Mr Robert Pincevic as to his INCOME then again as like Commissioner of Taxation (ATO for the commonwealth) any income must be understood as to the meaning of the Framers of the Constitution and not that income is what is
36 derived from direct and indirect taxable financial benefits, as this offend the Constitution that only one subject matter can be addressed in any taxation legislation! As such the States also fall foul upon how it assesses the unconstitutional State LAND TAXES being on INCOME derived from different sources.
.
10
15
20
As you may be aware there are thousands of ratepayers in clashes with municipal and shire councils as to the paying of rates, and this too is a matter then may soon so to say blow up in the face of State and Territorial governments, as I have published articles about this in the past. It is therefore essential that the State government reconsiders how it goes about and in particular how it pursues objectors who in the end all along may be proven to be right in certain issues but because the State/Territorial government rely upon legal advisors who may know next to nothing about what is constitutionally applicable then the State government, other then to provide so to say a gold mine for the lawyers to keep them in a job it doesnt at all act appropriately for the general public. Instead of having if not thousands then hundreds of court cases about rates, etc, I view it would be far more sensible if the State/Territorial governments were to reconsider its positions and perhaps call an inquiry to assess what is actually constitutionally appropriate. I will not delve into all the finer details in this correspondence about it but can assure you that you might be in the end horrified citizens have been unduly so to say crucified in courts where they all along had a rightful position in regard of certain objections but even the judiciary was blind to it because after all they were all trained in the same manner and so not open-minded to what is constitutionally applicable and justified.
.
25
QUOTE R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' END QUOTE
.
TAYLOR v. TAYLOR [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979)
Similarly in Commissioner of Police v. Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383, at p 395, Dixon C.J. and Webb J. said that 30
QUOTE it is a deep-rooted principle of the law that before anyone can be punished or prejudiced in his person or property by any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding he must be afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard. END QUOTE
.
35
40
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution: END QUOTE
.
45
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great stress upon it as affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man. END QUOTE
.
50
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; 55
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. 8-9-2011 Page 36 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
37
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE
.
10
15
What we now have is a considerable disaster where ordinary people were dragged through the courts, perhaps had their property garnished to pay alleged unpaid land taxes where in the end the State government could have avoided all this rot to some extend if it had years ago consulted the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN as to constitutional matters. Innocent people in the process had their lively and perhaps also their lives destroyed and all because State/Territorial governments failed to appropriately consider constitutional matters, and lawyers involved simply look at matters from their point of view rather from a constitutional point of view what is just and proper. As an example; there was the recent Victorian Colosimo case where I (as a professional advocate, Attorney and CONSTITUTIONALIST) took over from the lawyer and despite more then 20 opponent lawyers being involved in the case proved to the trial judge that Mr Colosimo actually all along had not at all been in breach of law, even so he was by then was on his 6th contempt hearing. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor had instituted the legal proceedings incorrectly as the proceedings, by legislative provisions, only could be instituted in a magistrates court, something all those lawyers never realised over all the years of their litigation against Mr Colosimo. Also, I got rid of the Administration orders over Mr Colosimo showing that the expert witnesses simply didnt know what they were talking about because their (medical) assessments all had been based upon Mr Colosimo being convicted of contempt, where as in fact I proved he had not been even formally charged with contempt let alone convicted. As such, what we saw was with all those lawyers involved, including the Office of the Public Advocate, Victorian Legal Aid none of the lawyers could comprehend you first needed a formally charge a person before you can hold all those contempt hearings let alone tell a defendant he could be imprisoned for up to 5 years! His case also related to taxes, FEE SIMPLE, etc. Despite that a County court judge Her Honour Harbison was presiding over matters she was acting as a Deputy President of VCAT (Victorian civil and Administrative Tribunal) and by this in conflict of her legal duties as an IMPARTIAL judicial officer of the County Court of Victoria also serving a master being a State government as a judge but then with the obligation to act in accordance with the governments policy as previously VCAT member Helen Gibson made clear to Mr Colosimo.
.
20
25
30
35
40
Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR: You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters. END QUOTE
45
50
In my view no judicial officer can be a judge of a Court of law and also be a judge on a Tribunal as the Framers of the constitution referred to a retired judge to be dealing with a tribunal. Likewise so with a Court of disputed Returns as judges acting on a tribunal are causing confusion to the general community who belief to be appearing before a judge in his impartial position as a judge of a court of law but actually ending up being before a judge of a Tribunal how is acting in the capacity of persona designata
.
55
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. END QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 37 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
38
.
10
Yet we find that throughout the Commonwealth of Australia people are seeking to stand up for their constitutional rights and Mr Robert Pincevic is one of many, and are rebuked for this and severely castigated in the process as if they do not know what they are talking about where in fact the courts themselves and the lawyers appearing before it generally havent got a clue what they are talking about because their training during legal studies has prevented them to understand and comprehend the true meaning and application of the (federal) constitution. Hence, let the State of NSW commence to hold an inquiry so as to curtail all this litigation about State, municipal and shire rates and for once and for all try to get some proper understanding by all concerned what is really constitutionally applicable.
.
15
As I understand it there are various groups who so to say are sucking people of their hard earned monies to protest against rates/taxes and then are no where to be found when a person ends up in court with the objections and no matter how justified the objectionist might be the courts lack the knowledge and the skill to appropriately consider constitutional matters because it will be claimed that as there is legislation then so be it and this is precisely unconstitutional as the courts must consider any objection to legislation as to upon constitutional basis and not merely accept the word of the government lawyers for it.
.
20
25
30
I will not go into further details about this at this time but save to state that I am horrified as to the numerous cases that are clogging the courts and I know very well that this got nothing to do with JUSTICE because eventual more then likely the courts will rule against the objector, not because the objector might be wrong but because we lack any proper system to advise the Government, the People, the courts and the Parliament as to what is constitutionally applicable. Hence the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN so to say has taken up the baton to do so, not for individual cases but to try to stop this rot and so in the interest of all concerned. In the meantime I view that all State/Territorial government should call a halt to all litigations and have them all stayed pending matters to be appropriately considered. Obviously time is of an essence that such inquiry/investigation is not unduly protracted as you cannot have State/Territorial governments and/or municipal/shire councils running out of funds while at the same time you cannot persist in litigation against any citizen who might be constitutionally be in his right!.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians. END QUOTE
.
35
40
45
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
.
50
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT! (As you may say; We either have a constitution or we dont!) MAY JUSTICE ALWAYYS PREVAIL has been operating (without government funding) as a special lifeline service and as such I am well aware of the mental, emotional and financial hardship caused upon so many to the extend that people contemplate to commit suicide and yet at least I view it to be so, the State/Territorial government can resolve many of the issues by holding a proper inquiry so that finally many misconceptions, etc, can be so to say laid to rest. After all, every suicide cost the community also a lot of money and so why not spend the money
39 in a far better manner and hold an open and transparent inquiry and in the process serve the constituents as they all along are entitled upon?
.

.

. Awaiting your response, 10 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
END QUOTE correspondence 100929-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc QUOTE correspondence 101005-Premier John Brumby-Re unconstitutional STATE LAND TAX - etc
15
Mr John Brumby, Premier john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

.
5-10-2010
Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Leader of Her Majesty Opposition ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au * Mr Rob Hulls rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au
.
20 John,
Re: State Land tax etc
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
25
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues my concern is foremost what is constitutionally appropriate and for this direct myself to you. As you are aware of the copy of a 31 August 2010 to Premier Kristina Keneally (NSW) correspondence that I also forwarded to you in regard the unconstitutional State/Territorian Land Taxes and her office 13 September 2010 response being:
30
35
40
45
I now request to respond and set out to me what you propose to do, and considering there is a State election due if this will be addressed prior to the Election, if at all? It should be kept in mind that the Framers of the constitution made clear that all and any unconstitutional taxation must be refunded to those who paid it and this clearly will leave a gigantic black hole in the State
40 budget and this could have been addressed years ago when I recommended to you and the Attorney General that all and any legislation will be duly checked for its constitutional validity with the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN that is to assist as a council to advise the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to the meaning and application of constitutions? Will you take immediate action or refuse to abide by the RULE OF LAW? (constitution s.106)
.

.

10 . Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
END QUOTE correspondence 101005-Premier John Brumby-Re unconstitutional STATE LAND TAX - etc
15
QUOTE correspondence101129-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
20

.
29-11-2010
Cc: * Mr Robert Pincevic

.
Re: State Land tax - etc 25 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Kristina, Mr Anton Pincevic and Mr Robert Pincevic have requested me to urge you for a speedy answer as to the status of the investigation/consideration of the issues I raised in my 31 August 2010 and subsequent 29-9-2010 correspondences in view that the Department is pursuing them as to State Land Taxes irrespective of this being constitutionally permissible or not.
.
30
35
40
45
41 I understand from Mr Anton Pincevic that all he wants is the State to acknowledge that it cannot pursue him for land taxes as he rather doesnt want to end up in some legal battle but if the Government refuses to concede this then he intends to vigorously defend his constitutional rights in the courts. . http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1932/63.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=income%20tax
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Millar [1932] HCA 63; (1932) 48 CLR 618 (8 December 1932)
10
QUOTE The jurisdiction of the New South Wales Legislature is subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which distributes powers of legislation between Commonwealth and State Parliaments. But no question of competing or overriding power arises in this case; and the only ground upon which the validity of the enactment contained in sec. 103 (1) (b) of the Stamp Duties Act has been attacked is that it is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the New South Wales Legislature. Unlike the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, those of the New South Wales Parliament are not defined by reference to subject matter, but, subject to the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, extend to the peace, welfare and good government of the State in all cases whatsoever. END QUOTE
.
15
20
As pointed out in previous correspondence;

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE
.
40
45
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.
50
55
I urge you to forthwith and without any undue delay direct your Department(as) to show due and appropriate respect and observation the provisions of the constitution and to seize any conduct against Mr Anton Pincevic and Mr Robert Pincevic in regard of alleged State land taxes. I understand that the position of Mr Anton Pincevic is that he is entitled to have a proper response to the issue of the constitutional validity of State land taxes against him as referred to in my various correspondences to you and your Department(s) must show the decency and courtesy to also await your response. In view of the above and considering the about 3 months that has passed since I provided you with my 31 August 2010 correspondence I urge you to contact Mr Anton Pincevic and Mr Robert Pincevic and let them know about the legal status, if any, of the issues raised by me by forwarding the correspondences to them at c/- 2342 Norther Road,
42 Luddenham NSW 2745 and a electronic copy can be forwarded in the meantime to; Robert Pincevic roblp@bigpond.com. Obviously a copy to be forwarded to myself also at mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com.
.
10
An about 3-month period surely would be deemed to have been sufficient time to consider matters and have communicated back to me details and the fact this never eventuated may underline that there is perhaps a deliberate tactic to delay matters and this obviously is unacceptable to both Mr Robert Pincevic and Mr Anton Pincevic and therefore all purported State land tax demands will be deemed null and void unless the State can prove otherwise. In all fairness the delay of about 3-months surely in itself underlines a failure of proper communication.
.

.
15 . Awaiting your response, 20

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
END QUOTE correspondence101129-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc QUOTE correspondence 101231-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
25

.
31-12-2010
30
Cc: * Mr Ted Baillieu Premier ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au * Prof David de Kretser, Governor of Victoria C/o ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au * Mr Robert Pincevic Robert Pincevic <roblp@bigpond.com> PO Box 15 Luddenham NSW 2745
.
Re: State Land tax - etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 35 . Kristina, your office for having provided me with a 13 September 2010 response (in regard of my 31 August 2010 correspondence to you regarding the unconstitutional State land taxes: 40
QUOTE CMU10-16940 13 September 2010 Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka I write in response to your recent email to the Premier concerning land tax. As the matter you have raised concerns the administration of the Treasurer, the Hon 8-9-2011 Page 42 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
45
43
Eric Roozendaal MLC, your email has been forwarded to the Treasurer for attention. You may be sure that your letter will receive close consideration. Yours sincerely David Swain for Director General END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
Regretfully since then despite further subsequent correspondences nothing was heard about it. . Obviously both Mr Robert Pincevic and his father Mr Anton Pincevic have urged me to follow up the matter in view that your Department is still pestering them about State land taxes. The former Premier of Victoria Mr John Brumby also ignored to respond appropriately and well I assisted in the Bentleigh election pursuing that State land Taxes are unconstitutional and Bentleigh certainly got the message and so to say revolted against the ALP and handed it to the Liberals and consequently Mr Ted Baillieu became premier of the state of Victoria. Considering that it is now some 4-months since I wrote initially to you and you lacked any proper response I would not encourage land holders to follow the example of Dr John B. Myers in Bentleigh to spread the word about the unconstitutional land taxes so that in the upcoming State election of NSW you may discover this may be a problem you may have wished you had attended to while you could. When a Government Department requires a response of a citizen then generally it allows no more but 14 days and I view a Government Department should then likewise be limited to a 14 days response. Clearly now 4 months to the day that I wrote originally to you no proper response has been received by me and I understand neither by Mr Robert Pincevic and/or his father Mr Anton Pincevic and as such I view that they and other landholders should consider to commence a elaborate campaign against you and others in government so that you may so to say wake up that you cannot ignore the issue.
.
30
Below I have referred to the Paliflex case (including errors made in that case) and also Hansard quotations and I urge you to ensure to respond to me and the Pincevics within 14 days of this email/letter in a comprehensive manner setting out the position of the N.S.W. government regarding what I view is unconstitutional legislation regarding State land taxes.
.
35
In my view as a Premier you have a duty and obligation to act in the best interest of the citizens of New South Wales and not to perhaps ignore the issue so the government Department can continue collecting if not enforcing unconstitutional State land taxes. As I stated in my previous 31 August 2010 correspondence to you; http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. END QUOTE
.
40
45
Within Section 51 of the constitution both the States and the Commonwealth have certain legislative powers however as the Framers of the Constitution stated:
Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. REID
50
The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be possible for the Federal Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on themthe state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law.
END QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 43 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
55
44
.
Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation. END QUOTE
.
10
15
Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID: We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any complication of the kind. END QUOTE
.
20
25
Below I quote parts of the Paliflex case and it may be noted that the High Court of Australia apparently was unaware in its decision to make a conflicting judgment in that it on the one hand held that the 1956 Land Tax was valid and yet on the other hand made clear the state could not encroach upon exclusive commonwealth legislative powers. What the High Court of Australia simply overlooked in its judgment was that since 1910 the land tax issue became an exclusive legislative power. Actually the judgment also seems to misconceive that Commonwealth can be sold off and State laws are normally applicable. The truth is that when the Commonwealth owned land upon federation, this despite that it was stated: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/65.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Paliflex
Paliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003)
.
30
35
QUOTE at 61 (CALLINAN J.) The Commonwealth owned no land at the time of Federation. Everything it has (apart from land transferred or ceded to it pursuant to ss 85 and 125 of the Constitution or given to it), must have been acquired either by purchase, overshadowed no doubt by its ultimate power of compulsory acquisition, or by compulsory acquisition. END QUOTE
.
The evidence is in the constitution itself, which states:

QUOTE
69 Transfer of certain departments 40

On a date or dates to be proclaimed by the Governor-General after the establishment of the Commonwealth the following departments of the public service in each State shall become transferred to the Commonwealth: posts, telegraphs, and telephones; naval and military defence; lighthouses, lightships, beacons, and buoys; quarantine.
END QUOTE
45
50
55
. At that time all land, including for example Point Nepean in Victoria became exclusive Commonwealth property. As a matter of fact any land upon which this was vested became sovereign land in that the Commonwealth didnt just hold it as proprietor but also as sovereign. What this means is that all State laws whatsoever were extinguished upon any land so transferred as part of the properties within s69 and those acquired within s.85 with the consent of the State. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that when the State didnt consent to the Commonwealth acquiring property then the Commonwealth would do so merely as a proprietor where State laws would remain applicable for so far it didnt conflict with the purpose
45 for which the land was obtained, .but when the State approved it then the Commonwealth became sovereign over the land and all and any State laws became extinguished. Consider also http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1923/23.html Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 23; (1923) 32 CLR 200 (5 June 1923) and Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923) albeit then the High Court of Australia erred to some decree because only when land was in exclusive powers of the Commonwealth as sovereign would it have powers to minerals in the land. Where the Commonwealth were merely hold the land as a proprietor then it has no constitutional rights to the minerals under the land. Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-And even independent of that provision. It has been held over and over again in the United States that it is one of the attributes of sovereignty that the Supreme Government shall be unfettered in carrying out the powers intrusted to it, and for the purpose of carrying out those powers it has the right to acquire land compulsorily. No express power is given in the United States Constitution, and the Supreme Court of that country has held that no express language is necessary. That power was exercised for the first time, I think, in 1875, but it has since been exercised, beyond all doubt, on several occasions. Mr. REID.-For what purposes? Mr. ISAACS.-For public purposes-only for the purposes committed to it by the Constitution.
10
15
20
Mr. HIGGINS.-In the Constitution of the United States there is a general power given for all purposes incidental. Mr. ISAACS.-Oh, the same as we have here. Mr. KINGSTON.-Is not the supremacy of the United States Government a little different from the supremacy of our proposed Federal Government?
25
Mr. ISAACS.-Not in this respect. The supremacy, as far as the powers committed to it are concerned, would, in this respect, I apprehend, be exactly the same as the Supremacy of our Commonwealth Government in relation to its powers. In the case of Kohl v. United States, which was decided in 1875, on this very question of the right of the United States Government to compulsorily take property within the state for its public purposes, the court said this:It has not been seriously contended during the argument that the United States Government is without power to appropriate lands or other property within the states for its own uses, and to enable it to perform its proper functions. Such an authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. These cannot be preserved if the obstinacy of a private person, or if any other authority, can prevent the acquisition of the means or instruments by which alone governmental functions can be performed. The powers vested by the Constitution in the General Government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the states. These are needed for forts, armories, and arsenals, for navy yards and light-houses, for custom-houses, postoffices, and court-houses, and for other public uses; If the right to acquire property for such uses may be made a barren right by the unwillingness of property holders to sell, or by the action of a state prohibiting a sale to the Federal Government, the constitutional grants of power may he rendered nugatory, and the Government is dependent for its practical existence upon the will of a state, or even upon that of a private citizen. This cannot be. No one doubts the existence in the state Governments of the right of eminent domaina right distinct from and paramount [start page 261] to the right of ultimate ownership. It grows out of the necessities of their being, not out of the tenure by which lands are held. It may be exercised, though the lands are not held by grant from the Government, either mediate'y or immediately, and independent of the consideration whether they would escheat to the Government in case of a failure of heirs. The right is the offspring of political necessity; and it is inseparable from sovereignty. unless denied to it by its fundamental law. Put it is no more necessary for the exercise of the powers of a state Government than it is for the exercise of the conceded powers of the Federal Government. That Government is as sovereign within its sphere as the states are within theirs. True, its sphere is limited. Certain subjects only are committed to it; but its power over those subjects is as fall and complete as is the power of the states over the subjects to which their sovereignty extends. The power is not changed by its transfer to another holder. Then the court went on to say8-9-2011 Page 45 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
30
35
40
45
50
46
But, if the right of eminent domain exists in the Federal Government, it is a right which may be exercised within the states, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution.
10
15
20
25
30
The whole judgment proceeds in that way. It has been followed in several cases, and I think it has been laid down more than once in express terms that, for the purpose of carrying out the powers expressly given to the federal authority in the Constitution, the right of eminent domain is an essential attribute, and therefore I do not entertain the slightest doubt that, as in that case, and as in several other cases, the United States Government has, even without the consent of the state, taken land so far as it was necessary for the exercise of its public duties, we should have the same right here. I will now proceed to show the meaning of this subsection. This sub-section does not say that the Federal Government is to have the power to take that land. It assumes that the Federal Government has that power, but when the Government does take land, compulsorily or by purchase, in a state as its possession, it takes that land certainly by virtue of its sovereign power of eminent domain, that is, the highest dominion. But it does not hold that land as sovereign, it holds the land as proprietor. Now, where it holds the land merely as proprietor, without the consent of the state being given to it, it is quite plain that the jurisdiction of the state should run, except, of course, so as not to interfere with the performance of the governmental functions of the Federal Government. But, as far as punishing crime is concerned, as far as any other ordinary state supervision relates, not inconsistent with the performance of the supreme functions of the Commonwealth, the ordinary state law will run. But the United States have provided, and we, I understand, propose to provide here, that, where the state consents to the Federal Government acquiring any land, either by purchase or compulsorily, it thereby consents, and that consent is equivalent to the admission of the right of the Federal Government to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect to that particular portion of territory. And if the state does not choose to give its consent, it says, in effect-"You may take this land, it is true, by virtue of your sovereign right, for your sovereign powers, but you hold it as proprietor; you can carry on your post-office, your court-house, or anything you please, but as regards ordinary state laws outside those functions our state laws prevail. Where the state, however, is asked by the Federal Government to consent to the excision of a piece of land from its own territory for governmental purposes, and does consent, then the exclusive right of the Federal Government to govern that portion of land attaches to it, and this is what the sub-section we are now considering intends to enact. Therefore, I think that the leader of the Convention is right in not pressing this amendment, and that we should be doing well to keep in the words "with the consent," because it does not relate to the acquisition of property, but to the exercise of jurisdiction over the property when it is acquired. END QUOTE
.
35
40
45
50
55
When I exposed this to the then Prime Minister John Howard that he couldnt sell the land (Point Nepean) to private interest as it would remain Commonwealth sovereign property and so the Commonwealth would then have to provide for the relevant infra structure including law enforcement, etc, it was then that John Howard aborted any sale of the land as such. Commonwealth land that is held in not just propriety but as sovereign cannot be sold of to individuals and then State laws are applied because the land technically remains under the sovereign powers of the Commonwealth. As to if the Commonwealth obtained the land relating to the Paliflex case as sovereign and not just as proprietor is not what I have delved into albeit the judgment appears to indicate it never was. For all purposes and intend if the land relating to the Paliflex case was held by the Commonwealth as sovereign then it would have and still would be under Commonwealth powers irrespective if it was sold to Paliflex and subsequently to others as much as with old Australia Post/Telecom/Telstra land that purportedly was sold off but never was the sovereign powers of the Commonwealth extinguished if the land had not been returned back first to the relevant state. As such, if the Commonwealth holds land as proprietor then it is basically holding the land by title but the land remains under the sovereign rights of the relevant State and all State laws are applicable for so far they do not interfere with the purpose for which the Commonwealth holds the land as proprietor. If however the Commonwealth obtained the land as a sovereign then it will continue to be the sovereign of this land regardless it may transfer the titled to Paliflex or whomever. Then State as cannot be applied as the land is not part of the State sovereign powers. After all a clear example is the ACT where the Commonwealth allows people to obtain land but retain its sovereign powers as it didnt then revert back to NSW, as it used to be prior to federation! If the Commonwealth
47 therefore seeks to dispose of its sovereign powers it can do only so by relinquishing it back to the relevant State and then the State can deal with it as it desires. The Commonwealth cannot sell the land to private interest and then seek to transfer it back to a State while so to say prevent the State then to deal with the land as a sovereign as it desires. Hence, any sale of land by the Commonwealth that is intended to extinguish its sovereign powers must be done by returning the land to the relevant State and then the State determines how it may deal with the land.
.
10
15
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/65.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Paliflex Paliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003) QUOTE Windeyer J[36] construed the Scheme as containing an implication that it did "not encroach upon matters that are within the exclusive power of the Commonwealth". END QUOTE . Paliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003) QUOTE 17. The position which this Court should accept is that at no relevant time since 1956 have the Tax Act and the Management Act had any invalid application to the Land. More precisely, (i) the New South Wales land tax legislation was not invalid when enacted in 1956; there was no purported exercise by the State of what was the exclusive federal power conferred by s 52(i) of the Constitution; (ii) the Land ceased to have the character of a place acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes on the registration of the transfer to Paliflex on 4 February 1998; and (iii) in its application to the Land on the critical dates of 31 December 1998 and 31 December 1999, the State legislation was not an exercise of power with respect to a place acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes. These conclusions made it unnecessary formally to determine the validity of s 14(2) of the State Administration Act, but its validity is implicit in the reasoning leading to the above conclusions. The situation in 1956
20
25
30
35
18. We turn to consider proposition (i) listed in [16] above and thus to the situation in 1956 when the Tax Act and the Management Act were enacted. At that stage the Land was "property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth" within the meaning of s 114 of the Constitution and so, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, New South Wales could not impose any tax upon it. Further, the Land was one of the "places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes" within the meaning of s 52(i) of the Constitution. The Land had been acquired in 1922, but the phrase "acquired by the Commonwealth" carries within itself the notion of being the property of the Commonwealth as a consequence of that acquisition. END QUOTE
.
40
Paliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003) QUOTE 24. Allders also confirms[27] that the boundaries of the power withdrawn by s 52(i) from the States are charted by the grant of exclusive power to the Commonwealth, so that a useful test is to ask whether a federal law similar to the 1956 State legislation would be supported in any of its operations as a law with respect to the Land. The answer must be that such a law would have no connection with the Land, accepting that something more than an insubstantial, tenuous or distant connection is required by the authorities just mentioned. END QUOTE
.
45
50
Paliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003) QUOTE (CALLINAN J.)
55
55. The appeal fails on the basis that the two State enactments, the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) ("the LTMA") and the Land Tax Act 1956 (NSW), never had, or purported to have any application to the Commonwealth and any land owned by it within the State. Each of, and in combination, ss 3, 7 and 9 of the LTMA, the sections by which land tax is levied, refer or are intended to operate in relation to "land ... 8-9-2011 Page 47 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
48
owned by taxpayers". As the Commonwealth is not a taxpayer it does not answer that description. Furthermore, the Commonwealth is, to put it at its lowest, constitutionally exempt from any obligation to pay land tax to the State.
END QUOTE
.
Paliflex Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2003] HCA 65; 219 CLR 325; 202 ALR 376; 78 ALJR 87 (12 November 2003) QUOTE (CALLINAN J.)
10
15
20
61. The appellant contended that the two Acts burdened Commonwealth land. It was unable to identify any effect upon it however, except as to its value: in short that the Commonwealth could sell it for more if it were exempt from land tax. Attempts by the appellant to liken this circumstance to a defect in title were unconvincing. That the Commonwealth might get a better price if it could immunise land it owned from land tax for a period, or indefinitely, has nothing to say about the nature and completeness of the title that it can convey. Apart from the more obvious policy considerations arguing against the result sought by the appellant, that land no longer in Commonwealth ownership and therefore no longer used for any public purpose should nonetheless continue to have a tax free status, there is this. The Commonwealth owned no land at the time of Federation. Everything it has (apart from land transferred or ceded to it pursuant to ss 85 and 125 of the Constitution or given to it), must have been acquired either by purchase, overshadowed no doubt by its ultimate power of compulsory acquisition, or by compulsory acquisition. On acquisition it would have paid no additional sum for it because it was to be used for a Commonwealth public purpose, one relevant incident of which is freedom from State land tax. That follows from settled principle now enacted as s 60 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (Cth) which relevantly provides: "In assessing compensation, there shall be disregarded:
25
(a) any special suitability or adaptability of the relevant land for a purpose for which it could only be used pursuant to a power conferred by or under law, or for which it could only be used by a government, public or local authority; ... (c) any increase or decrease in the value of the land caused by the carrying out of, or the proposal to carry out, the purpose for which the interest was acquired; and
30
..." 62. An enactment under the Constitution may not of course be used to construe the Constitution, but s 60 of the Lands Acquisition Act reflects the law in force in relation to compulsory acquisitions at the time of Federation and of which the drafters may be taken to have known. That law is described in Corrie v MacDermott[86] on appeal from this Court to the Privy Council which explained the much earlier cases of Hilcoat v Archbishops of Canterbury and York[87] and Stebbing v Metropolitan Board of Works[88]. The principle was shortly stated as[89]: "The value which has to be assessed is the value to the old owner who parts with his property, not the value to the new owner who takes it over."
35
40
It would be odd, if having acquired land for a price which was unaffected by the incidents of public ownership, an acquiring authority should be entitled to sell it to an ordinary purchaser at a price enhanced by the continuation of a status entirely inappropriate to its new ownership and usage. END QUOTE
.
45
Further, as to water rights of landholders so to say the Commonwealth should but out because other then for navigational purposes it has absolutely no legislative powers to interfere with the rights of the states and so landholders in the states as to how much water consumption they may or may not have.
.
HANSARD 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 50

QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
We are only asking for the right that every riparian proprietor enjoys under British law-the right that the man above him shall neither injure the quality nor diminish the flow of any stream designed for their mutual benefit and enjoyment. That is a right that is founded
49 deep in natural justice. It cannot be said that we are asking for anything extraordinary or making extreme demands upon our follow colonists when we simply seek for that right which every riparian proprietor under British law enjoys. The tendency of modern legislation is to go even further than the common law doctrine in declaring that there shall be no exclusive property in running streams. The tendency of modern legislation is to say that while the riparian proprietors should have their rights under the law there is a higher, a paramount right, the right of the people who are the dwellers on the banks of these streams.
END QUOTE
.
10
15
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues my issue is foremost what is constitutionally appropriate and for this directed myself to you. I intend to publish a copy of this correspondence on the internet so that you might be aware that I will disclose details to others so they may seek to use it to their advantage to combat any unconstitutional State land tax. I have provided the email address of Mr Robert Pincevic also (above) so you can also respond to him and his father directly.
.

.
20

.

. 25 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
END QUOTE correspondence 101231-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc
30
From the above it must be clear that I gave ample of set out to both the N.S.W and the Victorian governments and yet nothing was really done by either governments to ensure that any taxation it was collecting would be so in a constitutional valid manner. All either government seems to do is to assume that there is any legislative powers rather than as I did set out in detail why any legislative power is deemed to exist.
.
35
40
45
What therefore is very clear is that neither the governments and/or their departments really couldnt give a hood about the harm caused upon citizens and proceed in defiance of what might be constitutionally required to be done. Basically the power to thwart those who may pursue their constitutional rights by retaliating by extensive and expensive (at cost of taxpayers) litigation seems to be how public servants deem to resolve it to deny ordinary citizens lacking sufficient funding their constitutional and other legal rights. And this is a core underlining problem why riots and other upheavals are occurring because there is no sense of responsibility by Governments and/or their department I oppose any form of violence but would not be surprised if one day people having lost so much if not everything rather than to commit suicide may just take on the very people who destroyed their lives! (One cannot claim to pursue Law & Order when at the same time the so to say government sponsored terrorism is destroying the lives of so many citizens.
.
50
Let us now consider some of the statements made by the Framers of the Constitution as legal principles embedded in the constitution which includes FREEDOM OF SPEECH and other political and civil rights but before doing so I will first quote a part of a case that sets out that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS as much applies to citizens and not must be perceived to exclude ordinary citizens. Regretfully the judges of the High Court of Australia rather than considering
50 the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution have side tracked to rely more on previous judgments no matter how wrong and ill-conceived they were, by this exaggerating the problems that already existed. 5 It should be made clear that the United Nations didnt exist at the time of federation and as such one has to go back to the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and not what might be purported because of some United Nations Declaration that may in fact rob Australians of their true constitutional and other legal rights. What however be applicable is the charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union at least for so far it doesnt conflict with the constitution and any legislation enacted within constitutional provisions, as the right of any parliament to amend its own legislation, including a constitution can only be limited by the provisions of the Constitution, but the right to provide complimentary legislation, such as the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) is clearly not avoided, as any legislation applicable to British law automatically applies to all British law, with the exception that constitutional law cannot be interfered with by implied amendments. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Act and as such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments - Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is. The application of the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR)! 30
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) QUOTE In support of his submission that, for Article 6(1) to be engaged, it was necessary for the relevant proceedings to be directly decisive of the civil rights in question, Mr Sales referred to and relied upon what he described as the consistent body of European jurisprudence on this point over the last thirty years (see paragraph 41 of Mr Sales written skeleton argument) in cases such as Ringeisen -v- Austria (No. 1) (1971) 1 EHRR 455 at paragraph. 94, Albert & Le Compte -v- Belgium (1983) 18 EHRR 533 at paragraph 28, Benthem -v- Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 1, Boden -v- Sweden (1987) 10 EHRR 367 at paragraph 30, H -v- France (1989) 12 EHRR 74 at paragraphs 46-47 and Barmer-Schafroth -vSwitzerland (1997) 25 EHRR 598 at paragraph 32. In the course of his submissions, Mr Sales referred to the following passage in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) in the case of Enzi -v- Austria (Application no. 29268/95) as a convenient and succinct statement of the relevant principles of law upon which he relied: The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute over rights and obligations which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law and, if so, whether this right was of a civil character within the meaning of Article 6(1) (see the Oerlemans -v- the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991 paragraphs 45-49). Article 6(1) only applies if the right is civil in character (see the Benthem -v- the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985 paragraph 32). The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6(1) into play (see the Allan Jacobson -v- Sweden judgment of 25 October 1989 paragraphs 66-67, 8-9-2011 Page 50 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
35
40
45
50
51
and the Masson and Van Zon -v- the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995 at paragraph 44). END QUOTE
.
10
15
It should be understood that unlikely any politician will champion the rights of citizens unless he/she can expand the right of the government to expand in further areas. The right of Privacy is curtailed kin that the Government by it has alleged legislative powers to obtain confidential material of citizens not applicable as such prior to the legislation being enacted. Therefore the notion that Parliaments are legislating for rights to promote human rights, etc, is a delusion that can far too quickly be exposed as such. The Commonwealth of Australia and neither any state need to legislate as to Human Rights, etc, because it is already embedded in the constitution just that parliaments didnt have any legislative powers in regard of this and so fancy to gain more legislative ;powers under the pretext to do it for the benefit of citizens while actually rewarding themselves or purportedly rewarding themselves with additional legislative powers that didnt exist previously and so then able to interfere in citizens lives unchecked. As such rather than promoting the need for a Bill or Right we should have governments accepting the very rights (including the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights that already are embedded in the constitution!
index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
20
QUOTE McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. END QUOTE
25
QUOTE But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. END QUOTE
30
What about if we just change the subject matter and instead have the following:
.
35
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every politician killed if it wanted to.
.
or
.
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every judge killed if it wanted to.
40
. It would be obvious that this kind of nonsense never should be accepted and neither is warranted by the legal principles embedded in the constitution!
.
45
QUOTE I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally from the legal principles that are embedded in the Constitution. END QUOTE In my 2-8-2003 correspondence, published previously in my book (30 September 2003);
50 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed. ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X 55 I included the following, in regard of the issue of the detention of David Hicks;
52
http://store.yahoo.com/4crests/magnacarta.html QUOTE When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws. This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and the sixth states
10
15
. . . the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. Written 575 years earlier, Magna Carta declares No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, . . . or in any other way destroyed . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice. In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede. Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People." END QUOTE Magna Carta QUOTE (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. END QUOTE QUOTE
20
25
30
35
(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. END QUOTE
40
QUOTE (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service. END QUOTE QUOTE (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms. (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: END QUOTE
45
50
It is clear that the above stated applies forever. END QUOTE 55 Since then the US Supreme Court handed down its decision that the Magna Charta does apply to the US Constitution.
53 Lets now consider what the High Court of Australia stated in;
Transcript of High Court Appeal Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
5
Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) QUOTE McHUGH J: But is not the problem you face that the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688 are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way the Constitution is binding on those legislatures? Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution is entitled to legislate in total disregard of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, as is the United Kingdom Parliament. Take the situation in Northern Ireland. They abolished trial by jury in Northern Ireland. If you go back to Magna Carta which, I suppose, is really the heart of your argument, it is really more a statement of political ideals. They are not constitutional documents in the sense that the Australian Constitution and the United States Constitution are. END QUOTE
10
15
20
Well, the US Supreme Court has (since the publication of my book on 30-9-2003) clearly ruled that the Magna Charta is applicable to the US constitution. Now, lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated during the Constitution Convention Debates;
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protection to every citizen. Mr. SYMON.-That is insured already.
25
30
Mr. OCONNOR.-In what way? Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions. Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State. Mr. SYMON.-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.
35
40
Mr. OCONNOR.-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by any state if it chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of offences, or particular class of persons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects of some wild impulse on the part of a majority of the community, and unjust laws were passedMr. SYMON.-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?
45
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not necessary to refer to. Mr. SYMON.-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna Charta? Mr. OCONNOR.-What Constitution? Mr. SYMON.-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by an Act of the Federal Parliament? 8-9-2011 Page 53 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
54
Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the Constitution of the states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact any laws which it thought fit, and even if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only dealing with a possibility, but at the same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might, would be very disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it. [start page 684] Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate. END QUOTE HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GLYNN.-I am now speaking of the English law. It has been somewhat modified in the Straits Settlements, and in one or two other parts of the empire, I believe, by giving a right of action for tort in certain cases, but I do not think that this extended right of action has ever been given in any of the colonies. Conditions justifying actions for damages against the Crown, however, are almost as frequent as actions for breach of contract. In Canada a man sued the Crown for damages received in connexion with a railway accident, but he was debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect in the railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen in the case I have already mentioned, thatWhere the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown, and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be obtained, compensation in money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods supplied to the Crown or to the public servicethe Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rights of action are given to the subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim against another subject. END QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE And QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE Again; QUOTE the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. END QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 54 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
55 Therefore it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that the Magna Charta applied to the Constitution and it is not for the judges to then seek to amend the Constitution by their own judgment to deny this to be applicable. 5 As much as the Magna Charta is applicable likewise so the Bill of Rights.
Hansard records 17-3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
10
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE Again; This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
15
20
25
There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;

Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUOTE GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of expansion, not contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation. McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect whatever, and that is the doctrine of this Court. We do not make a decision as to whether the law is for the peace, for the order, for the good government. It is assumed that if Parliament makes it, it is, and the real question is, is it a law with the same respect to trade and commerce in other countries or whatever the relevant law of Parliament relies on, but this Court has never attempted to say that a law, on the subject of trade and commerce, for example, is not "for peace, order and good government". It is, in effect, a parliamentary expression rather than a legal expression. It does not limit Parliament's power; it is said to expand them. MR ESSENBERG: I am not really sure I understand that. END QUOTE
30
35
40
Now lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated, as set out more extensive in the document for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc in Chapter 034O 45
HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I agree that these words appear rather startling. [start page 559] They are taken from the Federal Council Act of Australasia, and were inserted by the imperial authorities after consideration and in substitution for more limited words that were proposed by the Convention that met here in 1883. Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the federal parliament are only to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to adopt them. Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that if a ship leaves one of the Australian colonies for a British port, say London, having a British register, until she actually arrives in Great Britain, the laws of the commonwealth are binding upon her, and not the laws of Great Britain? 8-9-2011 Page 55 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
56
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the commonwealth outside the 3-mile limit could possibly apply.
10
END QUOTE And HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. END QUOTE HANSARD 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: That was the Convention which had, I think, to be called in consequence of the New Guinea affair. Sir Samuel went on:
15
20
Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the Federal Parliament are only to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to adopt them. Sir Samuel Griffith's reply to that interjection was; No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the Commonwealth outside the three-mile limit could possibly apply. That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly affect any law of the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as they are not in conflict they will be applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of those laws of the Commonwealth which it is necessary to have enforced. END QUOTE HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania: Omit the words "for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, lines 3, 4, and 5." The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: This is an amendment which was made in the legislature of Tasmania at the instance of the Hon. A.I. Clark. That gentleman has furnished these reasons for the amendment, and, perhaps, in justice to him, I ought to read them: These words are copied from the several acts of the Imperial Parliament providing for the establishment of legislatures in the various Australian colonies, and are perfectly appropriate when used in reference to the establishment of the legislature which is to possess plenary legislative powers, and have unlimited jurisdiction on all questions relating to the protection of life and property, and the enforcement of contractual rights of every kind; but it is very doubtful if they ought to find a place in connection with the definition and delegation of limited legislative powers which do not include matters relating to the daily protection of life and property, or to enforcement of private rights and obligations in general. It is true that they find a place in the 91st section of the British North America Act, which establishes a federal convention for Canada; but the primary object of that act is to limit the powers and jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and to vest the residuum of legislative authority in the Dominion of Canada in the federal parliament. The words in question may, therefore, fitly find a place in that act, and they were relied upon in the case of "The Attorney-General of Canada versus the Attorney-General of Ontario, which was decided by the Privy Council last year[L.R.A.C. 1896] to uphold the act of the Dominion Parliament, which had been challenged on the ground that it had encroached upon the domain of the provincial legislatures. That decision, in its effect, appears to me to be, an argument against the insertion of the words in question in connection with the definition and 8-9-2011 Page 56 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
57
delegation of the legislative powers of the parliament of the commonwealth, because they might, in some unforeseen and unexpected controversy, afford ground for an argument in favour of the jurisdiction of the parliament of the commonwealth in matters which the several states might claim to be wholly within their own legislative powers. It cannot be contended that they are required for the purpose of giving the parliament of the commonwealth full power to legislate with regard to all the subjects mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52; and, if they are not required for that purpose, they must inevitably encourage the contention that they are inserted [start page 1037] for some additional purpose. But, if their insertion in not intended to add in any way to the powers of parliament, in relation to the matters mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52, then they violate the canon of drafting, which requires that no unnecessary words should be used in giving expression to the intention of the legislature. They are very properly inserted in section 53, because that section confers upon the parliament of the commonwealth plenary and exclusive powers in regard to the several matters mentioned in the sub-section of that section. But their presence in section 52 tends to create a resemblance in the scope of the powers conferred by the two sections, whereas it would be much more desirable to make the difference in the purport of each section as apparent and emphatic as possible. I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the ambit of those specified. The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had better not be left out of the bill altogether. The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting Committee.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Amendment negatived. END QUOTE Again; QUOTE Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government END QUOTE HANSARD 13x-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-The Parliament has by clause 52 full power and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to a large number of matters that are set out. This is a power that is without limitation. END QUOTE
45
50
It should be understood that while it was stated

This is a power that is without limitation.
55
It is within the limits of being for for the peace, order, and good government! As such as long as it is within the scope of for the peace, order, and good government the legislative powers is unlimited.
.
Unlike judges of the High court of Australia basically substituting the constitution for what they may personally desire to be applicable IU am on the otherhand more concerned to ensure to
58 quote the Framers of the Constitution to prove to all that I am not just fabricating it all but have so to say done my homework. And here is where there is a difference between a real CONSTITUTIONALIST and being a lawyer. Lawyers are skilled in twisting the meaning of legislation and hence it was made clear by the Framers of the Constitution, of which themselves were ample of eminent lawyers;
.
10
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE
.
15
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE
.
Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
20
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the people. END QUOTE
25
30
. And now some further quotations: . 35

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A Plaintiff, Appellee, v.
40
JOHN CUNNIFFE, in his individual capacity; PETER J. SAVALIS, in his individual capacity; JEROME HALLBREWSTER, in his individual capacity; CITY OF BOSTON,
45
50
55
Defendants, Appellants. QUOTE Long-standing principles of constitutional litigation entitle public officials to qualified immunity from personal liability arising out of actions taken in the exercise of discretionary functions. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); Barton v. Clancy, 632 F.3d 9, 21 (1st Cir. 2011). The qualified immunity doctrine "balances two important interests -- the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). We apply a two-prong analysis in determining questions of qualified immunity. Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir. 2009). These prongs, which may be resolved in any order, Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, require that we decide "(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant's alleged violation," Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269. The latter analysis of whether a right was "clearly established" further divides into two parts: "(1) 'the clarity of the law at the time of the alleged civil rights violation,' and (2) whether, given the facts of the 8-9-2011 Page 58 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
59
particular case, 'a reasonable defendant would have understood that his conduct violated the plaintiff['s] constitutional rights.'" Barton, 632 F.3d at 22 (alteration in original) (quoting Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269). An affirmative finding on these inquiries does "not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the . . . constitutional question beyond debate." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2083 (2011). At bottom, "the salient question is whether the state of the law at the time of the alleged violation gave the defendant fair warning that his particular conduct was unconstitutional." Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269. END QUOTE JOHN CUNNIFFE v SAVALIS v HALL-BREWSTER v CITY OF BOSTON http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A QUOTE As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) ("It is . . . well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas."). An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that "[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news 'from any source by means within the law.'" Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)). The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs." Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, "[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because '[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'" First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties. Cf. Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1035-36 (1991) (observing that "[t]he public has an interest in [the] responsible exercise" of the discretion granted police and prosecutors). Ensuring the public's right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, see id. at 1034-35 (recognizing a core First Amendment interest in "the dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct"), but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally, see Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (noting that "many governmental processes operate best under public scrutiny"). In line with these principles, we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties. END QUOTE JOHN CUNNIFFE v SAVALIS v HALL-BREWSTER v CITY OF BOSTON http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A QUOTE Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest."); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a "First Amendment right to film matters of public interest"); Demarest v. Athol/Orange Cmty. Television, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 82, 94-95 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding it "highly probable" that filming of a public official on street outside his home by contributors to public access cable show was protected by the First Amendment, and noting that, "[a]t base, plaintiffs had a constitutionally protected right to record matters of public interest"); Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F. Supp. 634, 638 (D. Minn. 1972) (holding that police interference with television newsman's filming of crime scene and seizure of video camera constituted unlawful prior restraint under First Amendment); cf. Schnell v. City of Chi., 407 F.2d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1969) (reversing dismissal for failure to state a claim of suit claiming police interference with news reporters and photographers' "constitutional right to gather and report news, and to photograph news events" under the First Amendment (internal quotation mark omitted)), overruled on other grounds by City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 (1973); Connell v. Town of Hudson, 733 F. Supp. 465, 471-72 (D.N.H. 1990) (denying qualified immunity from First 8-9-2011 Page 59 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
60
Amendment claim to police chief who prevented freelance photographer from taking pictures of car accident). It is of no significance that the present case, unlike Iacobucci and many of those cited above, involves a private individual, and not a reporter, gathering information about public officials. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. Houchins, 438 U.S. at 16 (Stewart, J., concurring) (noting that the Constitution "assure[s] the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors"); Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 684 ("[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally."). Indeed, there are several cases involving private individuals among the decisions from other courts recognizing the First Amendment right to film. See, e.g., Smith, 212 F.3d 1332; Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (holding that arrest of individual filming police activities from private property violated First Amendment); Cirelli v. Town of Johnston Sch. Dist., 897 F. Supp. 663 (D.R.I. 1995) (holding that teacher had a right under the First Amendment to videotape potentially hazardous working conditions at school, which were a matter of public concern). Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
. The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
.
30
35
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution END QUOTE HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question. END QUOTE
.
40
45
Hansard 12-2-18900 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN HALL. 50
It is said that history repeats itself, and we shall, I feel confident, have another instance of it. In the Northern Hemisphere the old Empire has shown to the world how it is possible to combine the greatest amount of individual freedom and liberty with most absolute security for life, property, and order; and I believe it will be our great glory that in the Southern Hemisphere, and in these Southern Seas, we shall repeat the lesson which the dear old mother country has taught the North, and that this great Australian Dominion will prove a centre of liberty, civilization, and light throughout the length and breadth of the Pacific.
55
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
61
Mr. SYMON.-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in constitutional law than Mr. Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has been the subject of more or less debate and discussion, and will be until the end of time. The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy at all times if occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle that there should be a definition of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr. Quick or by Mr. Barton. I will be quite content. The principle is what I am contending for: The principle that our labours will be incomplete unless we make the rights of citizens or subjects in one state to extend to the citizens of another state who may go from one state to another. There ought to be no possibility of any state imposing a disqualification on a person in the holding of property, or in the enjoyment of any civil right, simply because be happens to belong to another state. That would not give us the uniformity of citizenship we all desire, and therefore I am willing that the word "citizenship" should be defined as Dr. Quick suggests, with perhaps some modification. I also support the suggestion from the Chair that the two propositions might be considered together. The clause would do something to meet the difficulty, not perhaps finally or conclusively, as Mr. Isaacs, said, but at any rate to a large extent and almost completely. [start page 1788] END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
Hansard 17-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[4.10]: I have none of the fears of my colleague, who has just resumed his seat. The safety-valves he spoke about are created in the governments which we know as constitutional governments by providing judicious checks on hasty legislation. My hon. friend has just been arguing that these most necessary and legitimate checks are in themselves dangerous to society, likely to produce rebellion, and to land us in civil war. END QUOTE
.
30
35
Hansard 17-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[4.30]: My hon. friend, Mr. Holder, in the very clear statement he has just made, has supported the attitude that I took up the other day, and has shown that to say that amendments, referendums, and checks of all kinds might save the country from revolution and from civil war is really an untenable position. I said then, and I say nowand I am glad to be supported by what my hon. friend has said-that the more you multiply checks in a constitution such as this, the more you subject the country to turmoil and agitation, and the more troublesome it becomes to secure a calm decision of the country, and the more it would intensify the chance of civil war if that was at all imminent. END QUOTE
. 40
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GILLIES: The people themselves have undertaken the duty of creating such a force as, in their judgment, would be sufficient to meet any foe that might land on these shores. There is nothing in these resolutions that I can see that would justify the statement that it is contemplated by any colony, or by any group of colonies, or by any individual, to bring about a standing army of such a kind as that to which the hon. member referred-a standing army that might be a menace to the liberties of the people. The people themselves have created such forces as we have, it is they who willingly maintain them, and these resolutions contemplate no more and no less. END QUOTE Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
45
50
55
The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief Justice and especially for his judgment in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the eloquence of the orator, and the grasp of the statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said: It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible government in and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the knowledge and approval and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute," passed by the Imperial Parliament. 8-9-2011 Page 61 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
60
62
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said: All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the law, and the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government, have passed as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of no effect) and may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible ministers. These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
10
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term it) that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to find, as far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government. Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy Council, says:
15
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which we now enjoy are without warrant of law. That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in asserting that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people of Australasia will not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible government, or any limitations, except such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim, without shadow of doubt or vestige of qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by Englishmen. The governor-general, as representative of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute with all the powers which should belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he should act only on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the sanction of Parliament for their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into intimate relation with the electorates. This is true, popular government. END QUOTE Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second to none in the world. When the
20
25
30
35
40
question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be satisfied to possess less freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the explicit claim to possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British empire to the same extent that they are possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain itself. Australia is entitled to absolute enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a fullgrown democracy. END QUOTE Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON: The English form of government has grown wonderfully; it has expanded all in the interests of the freedom and power of the people. Mr. REID: Hear, hear. END QUOTE
45
50
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON: 8-9-2011 Page 62 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
63
The law administered here would be the common law of England, as it is now, without divergence and without qualification, except as it is varied by Statute law. END QUOTE
10
15
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON: I feel no reason to apprehend that the law which has been weighty in other courts of the realm would not be as weighty within the bounds of the Commonwealth we are attempting to create. My hon. friend said the establishment of the High Court of Australia and the discontinuance of appeals to the Privy Council would degrade our State Supreme Court. Surely he cannot have weighed that. How can it have such an effect? How can it be said that there would be one single element of degradation? He speaks of our financial interests, and we hear of the great bogie of the rights of property. I have as great a desire to maintain the rights of property as he has. I do not believe in the sacred rights of contract being wantonly interfered with. I do not believe in sacred rights of property being assailed unnecessarily, but it would lessen the power of the purse if we pass this; and if we do that, even, to a small extent, it will redound to our credit and bring upon us the commendation of those who have sent us here. END QUOTE Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON: we are to abolish the High Court altogether or to do away with the appeal to the Privy Council. We have this morning with great care been constituting a High Court of Judiciary for the Federation; we have been establishing it with a minimum number of four judges and a Chief-Justice; we have been surrounding it with safe, guards to secure its independence, to secure its integrity, and to secure its freedom, from legislative domination. END QUOTE Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE
20
25
30
35
Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people for more freedom, for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought to make provision in this Constitution by which the will of the people can become law. If we do that we shall be doing something which will make it more certain that this Constitution will be adopted by the people. END QUOTE
40
45
Hansard 31-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BRUNKER: The Constitution which was then implanted on the Statute Book was framed by men of ability; and I feel proud, as an Australian, to stand here to-day and with all sincerity to express the wish that these principles of equality, justice, and freedom which have prevailed under that Constitution may prevail under the Constitution which I hope may emanate from our hands before we disperse. END QUOTE Hansard 31-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BRUNKER: There is no reason why a people of one origin, a people who speak the same language, who have the same love of freedom and liberty, and the same hatred of oppression, should stand against one another, maintaining rivalries and jealousies which should never exist I am speaking in generalities, as I do not wish to enter into details with regard to the great, important, and delicate question with which we have to deal. I shall refrain from that course in consideration of the members of the Convention. END QUOTE Hansard 31-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 8-9-2011 Page 63 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
60
64
QUOTE Mr. BRUNKER: It matters not what position we occupy, where we are located, or what is our nationality, if as true colonists we do our duty well, the future is full of promise, not only to the present generation but to those who are to come after us; and, unless as time advances and the circumstances and conditions of the colonies change most materially, our future is assured beyond all peradventure; and this fair land, dedicated by our ancestors to liberty and freedom, will become so firmly affixed to the soil that it shall live for all time, and continue to shine as a beacon-light to the whole world, showing that an intelligent people are capable of selfgovernment. END QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. TRENWITH:
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Such power as is now possessed by voters should only be taken from them, if taken at all, through the most difficult process; for while it is proper that Parliament should have the right to facilitate and extend the privileges and powers of the people, it is only right that it should be most difficult to restrict the freedom of the people. END QUOTE
60
65
Hansard 8-2-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE
10
15
20
Mr. SYMON.-Yes, I am with my honorable friend in desiring to have the clause amended. The idea of the clause is good enough-that is, the preservation of absolute freedom of religious belief, but the mode in which it is carried out in this clause seems to me to be obnoxious. The clause is either a great deal too wide, or it is not wide enough. It is a great deal too wide in saying that no law shall be enacted. I am not referring merely to the state, in what I am now saying, because undoubtedly it ought to be the Commonwealth rather than the state. However, it seems to be, prima facie, an interference with the legislative authority of the state itself. But putting it both ways-a prohibition against the state and against the Commonwealth making any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religious faith is, I think, a little beyond what any of us is prepared to go. Would it, for example, prevent or raise doubts as to whether the Commonwealth could pass a law prohibiting the exercise of such a religious creed as that mentioned by Mr. Gordon? We know what took place in Wales, in connexion with the faith healers, where most abominable cruelties were practised in the name of religion, and whilst no one ought to be allowed to interfere with the faith of these people-the creed they profess-still, the law, in the the interests of the community and of humanity, ought to put a stop to the exercise of that faith in such a way as it was exercised in those cases. We are living in a very advanced age, not in medieval times, and there is no necessity for a prohibition of this kind, but if there be a prohibition there should also be a provision showing what is meant by religion, and what is meant by free exercise. Then again, whilst this is to be a prohibition against the state or the Commonwealth enacting a law interfering with the free exercise of religion, is it to be implied that the state or the Commonweath may pass a law interfering with persons of no religion-Agnostics, Atheists, and Deists? Mr. GORDON.-A Deist has a religion.
25
Mr. SYMON.-Some people would not admit that a Deist has a religion. Mr. GORDON.-A Jew is a Deist. Mr. SYMON.-Well, I am not skilled in the refinements of theology, but I ask the leader of the Convention whether it is necessary that the present clause should remain in the Bill at all? The [start page 660] points referred to by Sir Edward Braddon last night are of the very highest importance. We may be willing to admit people professing Oriental faiths, but unwilling to permit the exercise of those faiths as those people would wish to exercise them in this country, detrimental in every possible way to the cause of religion and of freedom itself. I would suggest to Mr. Higgins whether it would not be better to do away with this clause altogether, and limit the prohibition to the imposition of any religious test? Mr. HIGGINS.-Say "observance."
30
35
Mr. SYMON.-I do not know whether "observance" does not go too far. Mr. HIGGINS.-"Test" might include oaths administered in our courts and elsewhere. Mr. OCONNOR-"Observance" might include Sunday observance laws. Mr. SYMON.-I do not like the word observance it seems to me to go a little too far. I think that the object we have in view will be sufficiently met if we prohibit the imposition of any religious test as a qualification for any public office of trust. That is as it existed in the original Constitution of the United States. If we do that, I think we are giving a sufficient assertion in this Constitution to the principle that religion or no religion is not to be a bar in any way to the full rights of citizenship, and that everybody is to be free to profess and hold any faith he likes but the Commonwealth must be the judges of when it is proper to interfere with its open exercise. END QUOTE Hansard 8-2-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a case which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under adverse conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that state. The state can impose what conditions it pleases8-9-2011 Page 65 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
40
45
50
66
conditions of residence, or anything else-and I am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration of its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there is to be a clause introduced, to have the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one modification, omitting the words-"and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen." That would re-open the whole question as to whether an alien, not admitted to the citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions with regard to immigration, is prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to enter it under certain conditionswould be given the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE Hansard 8-2-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Under the various state Constitutions.
10
15
20
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of any state to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within the limits of any State. END QUOTE
25
Hansard 8-2-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-I think that the reason of the proposal is obvious. So long as each state has to do only with its own citizens it may make what laws it thinks fit, but we are creating now a new and a larger citizenship. We are giving new rights of citizenship to the whole of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and we should take care that no man is deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law. END QUOTE
30
35
Hansard 7-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-That is what I am endeavouring to point out. In the countries from which the precedents had been gathered-and referring first to the European countries-the treaties there made were only founded on what is fair and right, that it was not a friendly act to use the water of a stream in such a way as to injure the freedom of your neighbour to the legitimate use of the stream in the same way. But there was no question of irrigation there. They had any amount of water for that purpose; they only dealt with what was a friendly and a reasonable thing as between persons having an equal right to use the gifts of God. They decided these matters according to their own local surroundings and local requirements. And so with the great rivers in America the same course was followed in deciding what navigability was. They said that a river had to be kept navigable, and that it was an unfriendly act between states, as it would be between individuals in a state, to use the rivers in such a way as to injure the enjoyment of them by others. But when they came to remote parts, where irrigation became of superior importance to navigation, then the rule that was acted upon was the same-that what was a friendly thing to do was that you should not injure your neighbour; but that rule was applied in an absolutely different way. That was why I voted for allowing the general words, which I thought every one agreed upon until I heard the remark by the leader of the Opposition in New South Wales (Mr. Lyne), and which I thought the Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Reid) fairly agreed to. END QUOTE
40
45
50
55
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON.8-9-2011 Page 66 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
67
We have decided to establish a Federal Judiciary. It is to be a High Court, supreme over all other courts, federal or state. It is to be established by the Constitution. It is to be part of the bed- for the acceptance or the rejection of the Constitution when framed. It is to be a court which is to guard and secure the freedom of every citizen
5
Hansard 29-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir PHILIP FYSH: It sounds very nice, but we know that if we had a body of irresponsible men as Ministers they would very soon be too powerful, and neglect the interests of the State, looking after their own interests rather than the interests of the people. The British people are so fond of these old institutions under which we live that they will never take up with the innovation which is sometimes suggested. They like to have someone who is immediately responsible. Their Constitution is a "codeless myriad of precedents," where "freedom broadens slowly down from precedent to precedent," till at last we have come to the position that, as far as human matters can be perfect, we are attempting to perfect the ministerial system, and our people like it. I believe we shall have to live under it. END QUOTE Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN: The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the responsibilities of selfgovernment. They have amply proved in the past that they are entitled to be trusted with all the powers appertaining to a free people. They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second to none in the world. END QUOTE Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority constitutes a sort of vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties should be the other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of the states from being drawn into this central authority, and from having their powers finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in America, whether it be the United States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards centralisation, and away from that local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have heard it said that those who advocate state rights are taking a conservative view of the question. I would like to know since what time have centralisation and democracy been associated? Those who advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose shadow alone democracy can exist. There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if you handicap a house, which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the establishment, in this huge island of Australia, of a strong central government which is local only to one portion of the continent, and as far as the rest of the continent is concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central government, just inasmuch as it never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably associated with tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because a central and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for which it is to legislate. I [start page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention should for one moment say that to strengthen in every way the rights of the states, as such-to protect in every way the local institutions-is the conservative mission. The whole history of federation has proved it is otherwise. It was in the name of state rights, when the question of the Constitution of America was being discussed, that the most fervent appeals to liberty that ever stirred the human breast were made, and all those opposed to state rights were the conservatives, the monarchists of that time. The strongest upholders of state rights from time to time have been those in favour of government by the people, and it is only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local government, that you can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is never government by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or commonwealth forms as under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members will not allow themselves to be hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing majority in favour of the state rights that are essential to federation, which we had at the commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I maintain that unless the state rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to enable them to stand up against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever 8-9-2011 Page 67 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
68
take root in Australia. It will not be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation, a unification, which, instead of being a guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most distinct tyrant, and eventually will overcome it. END QUOTE
5
Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: Local freedom and government by the people are inseparable. END QUOTE Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS: It is to be hoped that when such a proposal goes before the home Government some objection will be taken to it. I could understand that in dealing with foreign nations we should put duties upon their goods, and I should expect that we ourselves should be treated by them in the same way; but when the mother country takes all our productions without imposing the slightest duty it seems to me not a very generous proposal that we should raise a barrier against the productions of the mother country and treat her as a foreign nation That is very loyal indeed; in fact I am astonished at the loyalty of this Convention. I am not going to inflict upon the Convention my opinions with respect to loyalty; but when I hear that we are to be deprived of the Governor appointed by the Queen, that we are to abolish the power of veto, and that we are not to treat with the mother country upon fair and equal terms as regards fiscal matters, I am inclined to ask what hon. gentlemen think about their loyalty, and to say that their loyalty is a sham, and nothing else. How was I treated the other day? When walking down Circular Quay, I happened to see some goods that were imported, and some man said to me, "That is the effect of free-trade." I said, "I am a free-trader"; to which he replied, "You ought to be shot down, and I would shoot you down if I had the opportunity. I am a protectionist." Is that the sort of conduct we are to receive here because we have freedom of speech and freedom of opinion? Are free-traders to be crushed down becauseEND QUOTE Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Captain RUSSELL: It is a matter for social dealing. It is a matter with which men will deal rather through municipalities than through a great federation in advancing, what I believe it is necessary we should advance, the true liberties and freedom of the people. END QUOTE Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON: We are the one country of freemen on the continent!
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mr. TRENWITH: I thank my hon. and learned friend for that term. There is one colony of freemen on the continent. Why? Because every voter in South Australia has equal power with every other voter. We are now going to create another form of citizenship, and we must create it under conditions that will maintain freedom to the citizens of the nation, as South Australia has obtained freedom for the citizens of the state. Therefore, I am justified in saying that we have a right to consider the people of the larger states must and will consider whether we shall hand to posterity a heritage of slavery or of freedom. If we vote for equal power to every citizen, we shall be making free people of the future Australians; if we vote for greater power for one citizen than for another, we shall be putting chains upon the legs of the citizens in the larger states of this commonwealth. END QUOTE
55
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
69
I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of our labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice and not to the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political morality, and just action to the individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
END QUOTE Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY: These must seem almost too daring speculations; but, in point of fact, we are marching on to an altogether new epoch, to new times, and the very essence of the constitution must be this: I heard one hon. gentleman here state that we must remember that we are legislating for the future; and I agree with him if he meant that we are legislating in such a manner as to enable the future to legislate for itself-that it is our object that freedom in every respect shall be given, so that as each generation comes on they shall say, "Blessed be those ancestors of ours who have left us this freedom, so that nothing can take place-no changes in the state of the world-but we possess all powers to define the measures most necessary to bring peace and tranquillity at every epoch it comes on." That is the real duty which we should aim to fulfil; and it is only by allowing the people to speak, and at all times to declare [start page 140] their views and their wishes, and to have them carefully considered, that we can insure peace, tranquillity, and prosperity to each country in each successive epoch of time as it arrives. END QUOTE Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD: The people of Australia have stretched their limbs. They feel themselves animated by that high spirit which characterised their ancestors. They feel within them that they are doing a duty inspired by the same motives as those of their race before them. They know that men of their race have fashioned and formed a large portion of the globe in a manner that redounds to their honor and credit, and to the freedom of the world. They know that you cannot advance this country without adding to the wealth, and the national importance, and the power of that grand empire to which we belong, and they know that the expansion of the empire means the happiness and the freedom of everybody who lives under the protection of its flag. END QUOTE Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. J.H. HOWE: Not in the case of money bills. The power of the purse is the golden key which rules everything and opens every door. We know that we have allowed these things to be frittered away, and for the sake of federation and for the sake of entering into a brotherhood we have actually departed from the first position which we took up. After we have done that, some hon. members want to bring in these insidious amendments, so that the states shall have no independent life. Since I joined this Convention in Adelaide, that fair city of the south, where the people are as free as their air is pure, and whose freedom I wish to maintain, I have undergone the difficult task of fighting an election. END QUOTE Hansard 15-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. J.H. HOWE: . I remember once reading about an Irish deputation which waited upon one of their representatives, and accused him of selling his country. Of course the incident that I am relating refers to the time when Castlereagh and English gold deprived Ireland of its parliament, and almost enslaved its people; and when the deputation waited on him, and accused him of having done a certain thing to the horror of, the deputation, he went down on his knees and thanked God that he had a country to sell. We who come from the other colonies are not imbued with that idea. We are here to give that which is memory to the vigorous life of a free people occupying the whole of Australia; but we are not in a position, and we do not intend to give you that which belongs purely to the state. I say that I would rather become a native of Japan, than remain the citizen of a small state that yielded the powers that this Convention is trying to force from it. 8-9-2011 Page 69 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
70
What would national life be without freedom? We have done very well hitherto. Our colony is looked upon as a small colony that is, so far as population is concerned; but we have done great work with our population; we are a vigorous and a free people: we have undertaken works of great magnitude; we have the intelligence and common-sense to know when our rights are invaded, and we have the courage to try to maintain those rights. However much, from our geographical position, we may desire federation, it must not be a federation which will make us subservient to the larger colonies. END QUOTE
10
15
20
Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GILLIES: Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance. There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary, we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America. END QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional 8-9-2011 Page 70 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
71
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well. END QUOTE
10
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Is it a Constitution which gives all reasonable and liberal guarantees of freedom? That can only be answered in one way. Is it a Constitution the action of which, until amended by the people, is preserved and safeguarded? There is only one answer to that. Is it a Constitution which the people themselves, by their will expressed by their Parliament and themselves, are able to alter to suit their needs under conditions of reasonable thought, without unreasonable difficulty? There can be no answer but one to. that question. END QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.We know that it could never have been perfect by any possible contingency. But we may claim that it is sufficiently perfect for a free and self-reliant people to live under its rule with their freedom undiminished; and my answer to those who ask whether the Bill is acceptable in this light is this: When we met in this Convention we entered upon a task in which we realized we should be untrue to the trust reposed in us if we had not dealt with the matters which came before us with the sense of responsibility resting upon every one of us that we were dealing with matters on behalf of independent and self-reliant states. END QUOTE Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. MCMILLAN: When a popular constituency fails to elect me I shall be no longer in public life, so I am not afraid of the real public opinion; but I cannot forget that even in England, the very home of constitutional freedom, the very cradle of our rights and liberties, public opinion is often absolutely reversed in a few years. When I consider the position we occupy, that our action will not be criticised by the mere ephemeral, frothy views of certain people at the moment, but will be considered by the people of this country through all time, I say that while I am willing to try to the utmost of my knowledge and ability to gauge public opinion, while, I say, that if I knew thoroughly what public opinion was on any question, I would bow to it; still, I believe that the people of this country by the confidence they gave us practically instructed us to make a constitution which would be not merely the outcome of a passing wave and wind of opinion, but a constitution which we believe is based on principle, on the lines of our own constitution, and which will stand the shock of time. I am quite willing, as I said before, to leave to a certain extent this matter in the hands of the executive. END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Bering it FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS or other FREEDOMS it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution were careful to implant it all in the constitution by embedded legal principles but avoiding the Parliament to interfere with it by not specifically list it as a legislative power. But lets us keep in mind also that the FREEDOMS are at times limited as FREEDOM of trade and commerce is limited by all kinds of issues. The FREEDOM of appointment of a Governor by a State also is within limitations, and on and on it goes. The FREEDOM of taxation by the Commonwealth is limited to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth .
Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD: Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be favoured the appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia being a colonial appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of England-and I hope that it is a very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I maintain that the governor-general of the 8-9-2011 Page 71 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
72
future dominion of Australia must be the appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is the apex of that structure, and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any other [start page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions. END QUOTE
5
Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS: The governor-general must be the representative of the Queen by direct appointment from her Majesty, and that being the case, the government will be carried on in federated Australia in the way usually adopted now in the different colonies. END QUOTE Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS: The governor-general must be the representative of the Queen by direct appointment from her Majesty, and that being the case, the government will be carried on in federated Australia in the way usually adopted now in the different colonies. END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
And just to make it clear all those who made an alliance to the Queen of Australia are by this excluded from sitting in parliament because it would be an oath to a foreign nations head of state (if such thing exist) because all Australians are Subjects of the British Crown and if one doesnt know that then education is the best way to resolve this, that is education from a CONSTITUTIONALIST. One cannot swear alliances from the British Crown to the Queen of Australia if it is the same person as the Coke reports make clear.
Hansard 17-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY: I contend that the patience and the endurance of the people of Australia have been perfectly wonderful, and they deserve that the great reward of freedom should now be given to them. Have they in any one of the colonies had in past years the freedom of British subjects? Mr. MUNRO: Yes; every one of them!
30
35
END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
40
45 It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; British subject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire., with the consent of the Imperial authority, What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. We have a High Court of Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth by endorsing a substitute Constitution!
In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p 725 of ER)): QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 72 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
73
(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject? Mr. WISE.-I presume so. Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects. Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth." I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case. Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien. Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders. Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out. END QUOTE . HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE
.
30
Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GLYNN: Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country for the purpose of joining in legislation.
35
END QUOTE
40
As the States are created by s106 of the Constitution then all parliamentarians of any state Also must poses British nationality and indeed the very reason s.51(xxvi) was created was that while the Commonwealth could keep out aliens it couldnt keep out coloured people who were British nationals, like the millions living in India at the time and so being able to legislate for a particular race the Commonwealth effectively could by this deny them entry.
.
45
50
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS: I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia. END QUOTE
55
Anyhow, the following quotations will certainly underline that water issues are not as the Commonwealth and/or the States are dealing with and again also other issues and besides what is stated within this documents there is ample of more but for this correspondence it should be sufficient to indicate that a constitutional council is badly needed, not that of lawyers but involving CONSTITUTIONALISTs who do not have their minds tarnished by legal studies and so to say being brainwashed.
Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 8-9-2011 Page 73 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
74
QUOTE Mr. REID (New South Wales).I think, to frame words which will secure freedom to a railway system to impose preferential rates for developmental purposes, but not differential rates to attract the trade of another colony. END QUOTE Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. REID.-I am willing to leave each colony to run its own railways on its own lines, and to allow that on the part of New South Wales implies a similar freedom on the part of Victoria or any of the other colonies owning railways. But I am quite willing to give the Commonwealth power, in the interests of what we will call freedom of commerce-and in that sense equality of commerce-to redress a grievance which is based upon an exaction, an unfair and unequal exaction, from any class of persons using the railways of any State. END QUOTE Hansard 10-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE That is a quotation, and I hope it will be understood that it is within quotation marks. There is this further observation I should like to make. I do not say for a moment that the vast wealth and splendid progress which we have witnessed in the United States, with its unsurpassed enjoyment of peace and freedom, is due to its constitution, or to its form of government; but with all its defects, that constitution has been no hindrance to national prosperity. T END QUOTE Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: Does that refer to their use for navigation,?
10
15
20
25
30
Mr. GORDON: I am prepared, to meet the catchy argument of my friend, and will deal with it later on. Pitt Cobbott, Professor of Law in the University of Sydney, after stating the argument of strict law, says: But though in strict law each State could thus appropriate and regulate waters wholly within its territory, the use and navigation of most of the more important navigable rivers that traverse the territory of different States, have now come to be generally regulated by treaty or convention.
35
I have other authorities here by the dozen. Sir GEORGE TURNER: We will take your word for it, Mr. GORDON: This writer summarises the law with regard to rivers flowing in or between two or more countries. In the abstract, he says it river is the property of the country through which it flows, although the boundaries of it belong to both. He proceeds to show that this strict law is in violation of natural justice, and that conventions made in Europe, and now recognised as the public law of the world, have restored that natural right to its proper position. He speaks, you will see, both of the use and the navigation of rivers then he goes on: So far as European rivers go it was provided as early as 1814 and 1815 by the treaties of Paris and Vienna: (1) That the navigation of rivers bordering on or passing through several States should be free to their mouths. (2) That, subject to this freedom of navigation, States might exercise rights of sovereignty over rivers traversing their territories, but storehouses and stations for transhipment were not to be established, nor were those already in existence to be preserved, except so far as they was of use for navigation or commerce. (3) That navigation dues should be independent of the quality and nature of goods transported, and should not exceed the maximum fixed in June, 1815. (4) That the police regulations relating to navigation should be uniform and should not be changed by one State without the consent of others. Sir WILLIAM ZEAL: The Darling does not go through one State. Mr. REID: The waters of the Murray do.
40
45
50
75
Mr. GORDON: The waters of the Murray are fed by those of the Darling and Murrumbidgee, and they all flow into the sea in South Australia. END QUOTE
10
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: The Committee for Constitutional Machinery omitted that clause, and they omitted also that clause which provided that the States might make laws at any time to decide the tenure of office and the method of appointment of their Governor. The Constitutional Committee were of opinion that that clause might well be left out, as it was a clause to some extent at any rate interfering with the States, although it interfered with them in the direction of giving them greater freedom in the appointment of their Governors. END QUOTE Hansard 8-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD: Amongst men of common-sense we know what this invitation amounts to, and the manner in which it will be availed of let us go to the Imperial Parliament for any change in the method of the appointment of governors. If the will of the people preponderates in favour of a change, the Parliament of England will not object. Let us not, however, excite party feeling; but let us continue in the path which has brought us happiness, and which has not interfered with the freedom of the people of the colonies. END QUOTE Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: We have at present the greatest expert of the British Empire, Colonel Home, engaged in reporting on some system of irrigation, and, notwithstanding all the objections that may be put to me, I say it will be a distinct boon to Australia-federated or not-if the supply of water in the Darling can be used by those occupying the land. There will be just as full benefit derived from that as would be derived if the water were left in the river. Again, if hon. members study the geography of New South Wales they will see that we have a number of lakes which are fed by the overflow of the Darling. If we choose to shut off the openings of these lakes we can diminish the supply of water in the Darling to such an extent as to render it only navigable for half the period that it is now navigable. A federal law may, by preventing the flow of water into these lakes during flood time, cause a greater flow for navigation purposes, but if we could enclose the entrance to these lakes a large area of country could be watered so as to carry half as many sheep again and produce half as much wool again as it does now. There is another instance on the Lachlan, where we constructed the Willandra weir. What was the result? In a district where it had been almost impossible to carry stock to any extent, without going to great expense in conserving water, we dammed the water back for 100 miles, and there has since been a permanent supply of water, and the country carries twice as many sheep as it did before. Increased settlement and increased production on those lands will benefit South Australia, because a great proportion of the traffic will go through the colony. Hon. members may think the amendment will, to some extent, minimise the difficulty, but it minimises the difficulty to this extent-that it concentrates the full force and effect of the sub-section on New South Wales; instead of having the right to interfere with the rivers of Tasmania and West Australia, it will confine the right to the rivers and their tributaries in Now South Wales, right to our Far North; to our New England waterways-the Namoi, the Gwydir, and the McIntyre-and all those rivers where the dams are absolutely essential to the settlement of the country. Federal legislation might be passed prohibiting any interference with the natural flow of the waters. This is a very far-reaching section, which, if passed, will in the future threaten the best interests of the great colony of New South Wales. What does Mr. Gordon, with his [start page 805] double-barrelled amendment, propose? Not to have legislation merely to protect the people lower down the river Murray; but it is within the cognisance of this Committee that the hon. member has proposed that the Federal Government should undertake the work of cutting a deep water channel at the Murray mouth, so that large ships may come in and out of the Murray with freedom, and that if the Federal Parliament does not do this, authority may be given to the local Government to do it He knows that if the channel is cut, the water will flow away much more freely than before, and so be of no benefit to the settlers on the river, but all this is to be done for the benefit of the colony of South Australia only, so that traffic may flow through its territory. So far as Australia is concerned, the old-world law with regard to waterways will never apply. Our rivers were never meant to be roadways for traffic, but to run through this continent to 8-9-2011 Page 75 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
76
supply our drought-stricken country with water and irrigation, without which we cannot hope to see it carrying a teeming population, with pastoral and agricultural industries flourishing. END QUOTE
Hansard 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE That annulment of laws is substituted for the power of Parliament to annul these laws, because it is thought, if these laws do derogate from freedom of trade or commerce, it might just as well be expressly stated that they are not worth the paper they are written on. Then occurs the provision that the Parliament may make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission. The members of this Commission are for the purpose of executing and maintaining the Constitution in respect of its provisions relating to trade and commerce upon railways within the Commonwealth, and upon rivers flowing in or between two or more States. It is provided that the members of the Commission shall have a fairly secure tenure of office, in order that they may be non-political, and not subject to dictation. They are to hold office during good behaviour, they can only be removed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament during the same session, and they are to hold their appointments from the Governor-General and Executive. Their remuneration is to be determined by Parliament, and, as in the case of a judge, their salaries are not to be subjected to decrease during their continuance of office. END QUOTE Hansard 3-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE
10
15
20
25
Mr. HIGGINS.-I beg to moveThat the following be sub-section (31):To secure the navigability of all waters so far as in fact navigable which, in the course of their flow or after joining other waters, touch more than one state.
30
Sir GEORGE TURNER (Victoria).-I do not know whether my honorable friend (Mr. Higgins) has the right view of this or whether I have. I think we are both of the opinion that we ought to provide for irrigation; but the wording of this amendment is a direct instruction to the Federal Parliament to secure the navigability of all waters so far as in fact navigable which, in the course of their flow or after joining other waters, touch more than one state. That, to my mind, will shut out irrigation entirely. Mr. HIGGINS.-No.
35
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Surely my honorable friend must misconceive it, with all due deference to his better knowledge and better judgment than mine. It simply says to the Federal Parliament-"It is your duty to secure the navigability of these rivers at all hazards or at all costs, and the expense of irrigation is not to be taken into consideration. If I read this amendment correctly I must vote against it, unless my honorable friend can show me that I have misconstrued his meaning. Mr. KINGSTON.-It is not a direction or a duty, but a power. Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Surely power implies a duty. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-One broad reason which influences me in voting against the amendment is that it, like so many others which have been suggested, makes a difference between certain rivers and the other rivers of the Commonwealth. I hold the distinct opinion that whether we leave the Constitution to the operation of sub-section (1), or whether we do any-thing by way of stronger definitionand I am afraid that strong definitions too often amount to limitations-we should make no difference between the navigable waters of one state and those of another. Mr. HIGGINS.-My amendment refers to all navigable waters touching more than one state Mr. ISAACS.-That will not include the Darling.
40
45
50
Mr. HIGGINS.-It would include the Darling, but not the Yarra. 8-9-2011 Page 76 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
77
Mr. BARTON.-The Commonwealth control of navigation should include control over the navigation of the Yarra, the Tamar, the Derwent, the Swan, and every river in the Commonwealth which is in fact navigable. Mr. DOBSON.-Not unless its waters touch more than one state.
Mr. BARTON.-During recent debates we have heard a great deal about federalism, but we never heard that it was [start page 538] federalism to prescribe in one part of the Constitution that trade and intercourse should be absolutely free, while in another part of the Constitution power is not taken to secure that freedom. Mr. DOBSON.-That is hardly a fair way of putting it. What have we to do with rivers that do not touch more than one state? Mr. BARTON.-We prescribe in the Constitution that trade and intercourse shall be free; we also give the Commonwealth power to regulate trade and commerce. By the combined effect of these two provisions, and by further words, if necessary, we wish to obtain that the authority of the Commonwealth shall be paramount in securing proper and effective intercourse, whether internal or external.
10
15
Mr. DOBSON.-Yes, between state and state. Mr. BARTON.-Not merely between state and state. If a ship sails from Sydney for the Swan River, or from some port in Victoria for the Derwent or Tamar, is that not commerce between state and state? Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Is it not the river that flows from state to state that we want to regulate?
20
25
Mr. BARTON.-No, that is an exploded idea, which has been created by the continuous way in which the minds of some honorable members have been sedulously directed to the belief that the only river traffic worth troubling about is that in which New South Wales is concerned. A great many honorable members have been led to forget that inter-state commerce is not comprehended in the navigation of the Murray and of the Darling, that it of necessity includes the navigation of all rivers that are navigable, and which under a reasonable interpretation of the trade and commerce subsection can be kept navigable. The difficulty which has arisen, and which I quite anticipated, has arisen from the fact that we have been discussing the question of the Murray and the Darling at such great length that we have really left all other rivers out of account. I am sure that every honorable member will see that whatever power we give over the navigability of one river we must give over the navigability of another. Mr. ISAACS.-My amendment proposed to include them all. Mr. BARTON.-So far as the first portion of it is concerned the honorable and learned member took the statesmanlike position of proposing to deal equally with all the rivers of the Commonwealth. With regard to the trade and commerce sub-section I have been quite at one with him; we have been at difference only as to the best means to effect our ends. But I want honorable members to recognise that we must not make fish of one and fowl of another. We have no business to prescribe certain regulations for rivers which flow through or between two or more states. What we have to deal with is the river system, not of New South Wales or of Western Australia, but of the whole Commonwealth. The only federal view to take of the question is to let the power of controlling the navigation of rivers extend to every navigable river in the Commonwealth. If a ship goes out of a harbor, and is bound to a river, or if she goes out of a river, and is bound to a harbor, it matters not, the control of that river is essential to the complete federal control of the navigation. Without labouring the matter, I have only to say that I object to any differentiation between the rivers of one part of the Commonwealth and those of another part of the Commonwealth. When we deal with the rivers, we must make a uniform law applicable to them all, and as we are not now making that law, but only giving power to enact it, we must make that power as comprehensive as the equity of the case demands, and as wide as the limits of the whole Commonwealth Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-It is with something approaching to awe that I venture to differ from the construction placed upon the amendment by the [start page 539] leader of the Convention. The honorable and learned member is a lawyer, and a very astute one. I am a simple layman, who, when he reads the English language, outside of certain Acts of Parliament, puts a reasonable construction upon what he reads. Mr. BARTON.-Is not that claiming infallibility? 8-9-2011 Page 77 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
30
35
40
45
50
78
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I do not claim infallibility; I have read the proposed amendment, as I think any average schoolboy and a good many adults would read it. The amendment is to secure the navigability of all waters so far as they are in fact navigable which, in the course of their flow or after joining other waters, touch more than one state. How can my honorable and learned friend contend that a vessel leaving Adelaide for the Tamar sails its course over the waters of a river which join with the waters of the port from which the vessel comes? Mr. BARTON.-My right honorable friend must have misunderstood me. I never committed myself to any ridiculous nonsense of the kind.
10
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I understood the honorable and learned member to say that the Tamar, the Derwent, and the Swan were three rivers over which, according to the amendment, federal control would be given. Mr. BARTON.-Will the right honorable member allow me to explain what I said? I objected to the amendment because it dealt with rivers which, in the course of their flow, touched more than one state. My objection was that it was not material whether a river flowed entirely through one state or not, for if we gave the power to regulate trade and commerce, and with it navigation, that power should be so large as to extend to the control of the navigation of every river within the Commonwealth so far as it was navigable. Therefore, the clause imposed a limitation with which I did not agree. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I am glad that the leader of the Convention did not make such a monstrous statement as I understood him to make.
15
20
25
30
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I quite agree with the leader of the Convention with regard to this matter, and I am not disposed to criticise the amendment from a merely verbal stand-point. I agree also with Sir George Turner that the radical defect in the amendment is that it places navigability not only in the first rank, but refers to it as the only consideration. It is, under this amendment, the primary duty of the Federal Parliament to look after the navigability of these rivers, and to disregard every other consideration. I utterly disagree with that view; and I think from the wording of the amendment-I am not going to make any verbal criticism, because in my view no alteration would amend it-that the Darling would not be included, because the amendment is confined to waters which in the course of their flow do, after joining other waters, touch more than one state. Now, the waters of the Darling would not come under this provision until they touched more than one state. Suppose, however, you alter the word "waters" to "river," when does the River Darling ever touch more than one state? Never. The Murray does after the Darling joins it, but after the junction is effected the Darling has its existence obliterated. Mr. BARTON.-Might not the Darling touch more than one state after joining with the Murray? Mr. ISAACS.-Would any one say that it is the Darling River after the junction with the Murray? Mr. BARTON.-But the intention of the amendment is to say that the Darling is a river after the junction.
35
Mr. ISAACS.-The water of the Darling joins the water of the Murray. If you use the word "river" you never get lower than the junction of the Darling and the Murray, and if you use the word "waters" you never get higher than that. Honorable members will see that you are simply between Scylla and Charvbdis. [start page 540] Mr. HIGGINS.-The idea is plain enough; it is merely a matter of drafting.
40
45
Mr. ISAACS.-I am pointing out that the amendment does not make the matter plain by any means, but I am also pointing out that it is giving the go-by altogether to irrigation, and has this further cardinal defect, that it does eliminate, by embracing one class of rivers, and therefore excluding another from the federal control, rivers which ought to be under federal control for the purposes of inter-state commerce, and which are inseparable from inter-state commerce. I think we should put in words which will make it clear that that control ought to be adhered to. I do not know any better words than those of the first part of the amendment which I suggested, which embrace all such rivers and exclude all other rivers. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to reply to the criticisms which have been made upon my amendment, but I will do so very briefly. The leader of the Convention says that if this control is to be given in regard to any waters it should be given with regard to all navigable rivers, even with regard to the Snowy River, the Darling, the Tamar, and the Yarra. I join issue with the honorable member. I do not 8-9-2011 Page 78 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
50
79
think we should give to the Federal Parliament the control over the Derwent, the Tamar, the Swan River, the Yarra, or the Brisbane River. These are purely state concerns. More than that, under the United States Constitution there is no such power given. I have a passage here which makes it clear that under the United States Constitution there is a power which we have often had referred to during the last few days-to regulate trade and commerce. Now, Story, in his work on the Constitution of the United States, says thatIt is not doubted that it extends to the regulation of navigation, and to the coasting trade and fisheries, within as well as without any state, wherever it is connected with the commerce or intercourse with any other state, or with foreign nations. But it does not extend to the navigation of a river wholly within one state, separated from tide water by an impassable fall, and not forming part of any continuous track of commerce between states, or with a foreign country. Mr. BARTON.-Does not the case of Daniel Ball settle the matter? Mr. HIGGINS.-That case refers to the ebb and flow, I think. Mr. BARTON.-It denies that ebb and flow is an essential.
10
15
Mr. HIGGINS.-I do not intend to detain the committee with a discussion upon this matter now, but I think the point is clear from Story; and I deny, as a matter of expediency, that it is desirable to intrust the Federal Parliament with the control of the Tamar, the Derwent, the Swan River, the Yarra, orMr. HOWE.-Or the Styx.
20
25
30
Mr. HIGGINS.-Quite so. Sir George Turner says that this amendment stops irrigation. It does not. It simply leaves irrigation as it was, but subject to such paramount laws as the Federal Parliament may enact for the purpose of securing navigation. I admit that this amendment is not the one that I should have liked to have. I have already indicated what I should have. liked, and eighteen members of the Convention have voted for it. But this amendment does say that the Federal Parliament shall secure the navigability of all inter-state rivers. That is all I wish to do here. Mr. Isaacs has said that this amendment puts navigability in the first rank. I admit that he is right; it does. I will be as frank with the committee as I can. I should have liked to leave the whole question to the Federal Parliament to say whether irrigation or navigation should be in the first rank. But if we come to the question of what is right between states, I do think that all that South Australia could fairly claim would be that navigability should be kept up to such a degree as nature has allowed navigability. But that is all. South Australia cannot claim more than that. [start page 541] If she achieves the result of having maintained such navigability as nature gave the Darling and the Murray when their waters come to South Australia, she will be able to make use of those waters for irrigation or for any other purpose which will not interfere with the use of the waters above. Mr. BARTON.-You mean to keep, not make, them navigable? You do not want to extend navigability?
35
40
Mr. HIGGINS.-All I say is that if South Australia and New South Wales were in the position of private owners, with the Murray flowing through their land New South Wales, as the owner higher up the stream, must not diminish the flow of the water so far as to affect the degree of navigability which the river possesses at certain times. Apply that to the states, and say that the Federal Parliament may make such enactments as may keep navigable this river so far as nature has given it a navigable quality. If for this purpose there is need to clear away an obstruction the Federal Parliament can do it. If there is only need to declare an Act of the state Parliament a trespass the Federal Court will do it. I will therefore press this proposal, and I think honorable members will see that it is reasonable that there should be at least this power. END QUOTE
45
50
Do consider that the Houses of Parliament can make rules for their internal governing of proceedings but where is the power for the junk trips and other uncalled expenditure all purportedly done at taxpayers expenses where it has nothing to do with the conduct of the Houses themselves?
.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 79 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
80
Clause 49.-The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt standing rules and orders as to the following matters: I. The orderly conduct of the business of the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively:
II. The mode in which the Senate and the House of Representatives shall confer, correspond, and communicate with each other relative to votes or proposed laws: III. The manner in which notices of proposed laws, resolutions, and other business intended to be submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively may be published for general information: IV. The manner in which proposed laws are to be introduced, passed, numbered, and intituled:
10
V. The proper presentation of any proposed laws passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives to the Governor-General for his assent: and VI. The conduct of all business and proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives severally and collectively. Mr. WISE: It will be necessary to make an addition here to give full effect to section 8. By section 8 the two Houses have full power to define the privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and House of Representatives. In section 49 to give effect to that there ought to be a clause to this effect: Maintain, regulate, and exercise their respective powers, privileges, and immunities. Mr. BARTON: We have considered that, and I do not think it necessary. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: The clause as it now stands clearly limits the Federal Parliament in the matters therein mentioned. The Constitution of New South Wales limits the power of that Parliament to pass standing orders best adapted to the ordinary conduct of the Council and Assembly respectively. On a recent occasion a member was addressing the Chamber, and a person in the gallery began throwing stones at him on the floor of the House. The gentleman addressing the chair was a labor member, and he was reproving another person for having thrown stones at the labor party. Mr. BARTON: That is a little nearer here than New South Wales.
15
20
25
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: And a person in the gallery immediately said, "You want a stone at your head," and he thereupon threw two stones into the Assembly. It struck meMr. PEACOCK: What, the stones struck you? Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: No; they did not strike me. But it struck me as I sat there presiding over that Assembly as an extraordinary thing that the Parliament there could not punish the person guilty of such an outrage. We had to hand him over to the police, and he was brought up at the Police Court and fined twenty shillings. It weakens the power and it weakens the influence of Parliament that it cannot control disorder within its own doors and within its own boundaries, and if we accept these six provisions we limit the power of Parliament to make standing orders for the purposes indicated there. Under the eighth section of the Bill hon. members will see: The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of the Committees and members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. But viewing this forty-ninth clause in its restricted form, it appears to me that if we attempt to pass Standing Orders we can only pass Standing Orders in accordance with that section. I therefore move: That all the words after "as" in line 4 be omitted to the end of the clause in line 21, with a view of the insertion of the words "as they or each may deem to be necessary, and all such rules and orders shall have the force of law."
30
35
40
45
Perhaps it might be as well to put in [start page 757] what is put in the other constitutions of colonies, namely: 8-9-2011 Page 80 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
81
Upon being assented to by the Governor. Mr. BARTON: I do not like that. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal Parliament ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing disorder. When I say this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise control with regard to people out of its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder. Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.
10
15
20
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do so, that they immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I think, was connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the Parliament arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no power to do so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the Privy Council has invariably declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a municipality. Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting. Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when the decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made reference. Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must be considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:
25
30
The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary. The effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in connection with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the pronouncement of these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the present time is a Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing power. A Legislature which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred upon it, as they are conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no power except such as can be gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution. In the present instance we have passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges, immunities, and powers of the Federal Parliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until a declaratory Act is passed the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be accepted. The power of punishment exists in the House of Commons, and the same power would exist in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8. An outrage committed within the walls of the Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in the House of Commons. If a man ventured to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though unfortunately the thrower is not always caught, it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a matter to be dealt with by the Commons according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders? Mr. BARTON: Yes. 8-9-2011 Page 81 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
35
40
45
50
82
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause? Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not require Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist, and if you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the powers, privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons. Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49? Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in the meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, and there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need definition in the Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they are totally different in their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the business of each House and its transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing Orders. They have a historical application in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the Federal Parliament. Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders? Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for the regulation of its internal business. Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with regard to any Standing Orders they may make?
10
15
20
25
Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms. My hon. friend wishes the clause to read: The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing Orders as they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of law. That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the House.
30
Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point. Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have done is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con- [start page 759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken in the widest possible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of its powers, privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament. The Standing Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would like to say that the Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary. This would have the effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it stands is not sufficient. Mr. HIGGINS: I am strongly of the opinion that the amendment is too wide. Section 8 gives this Parliament all the powers, privileges and immunities which the House of Commons has and members also, and we want no more than that. Clause 49 merely makes assurance doubly sure by providing that each House of Parliament shall make Standing Orders for the conduct of its own business, and if the amendment be carried as proposed it means that one House of Parliament is able to make laws although the Constitution means that both Houses must concur in making laws. If one House can make laws it will have a very important bearing on the liberty of the subject and the liberty of the press. The words in the amendment are: As each of them may doom to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have the force of laws. There is no question which comes up more than that of libel, and it is important to see that one House of Parliament shall not make any law affecting the freedom of the press in referring to the conduct of 8-9-2011 Page 82 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
35
40
45
83
members. Any such law ought to be framed by both Houses; but the effect of this is that one House of Parliament is able to make laws to alter the law of libel and such matters. I think the Speaker of New South Wales will see there is no need for this.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I do not agree with Mr. Barton, when he states that this House of Parliament will have inherent powers. The Privy Council has frequently declared that colonial Parliaments have no inherent powers whatever. They only have the powers given to them by the Constitution Act. I think that with clause 8 there is no need for clause 49. Mr. PEACOCK: They have not a clause like clause 8 in their Constitution.
10
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: Then where is the necessity for clause 49? Mr. Higgins says all kinds of things might be done with regard to the press. I have such a regard and love for the press that I cannot realise that Parliament would do anything to injure that great body. But the hon. member forgets that the eighth clause gives Parliament power to do what it likes with the press. Mr. HIGGINS: But both Houses. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: No. Clause 8, which has been passed, provides that the:
15
Privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom. No one knows what the powers of the House of Commons are. It is a fact that within the last thirty years they have given up the practice of summoning to the bar members of the press for matters of libel. The hon. member who is so anxious and careful about the pressMr. HIGGINS: And the outside public. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I ask the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill whether there is any necessity for clause 49, having regard to clause 48. I am anxious that the powers of Parliament should be limited to within its walls. Mr. GLYNN: Undoubtedly the effect of the amendment would be to deal with the outside public-that power which does [start page 760] not exist in the House of Commons. In Stockdale v. Hansard it was held that the courts of law were not precluded by a resolution of the House of Commons from inquiring into the legality of the act complained of, and in delivering judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench, Patterson (Justice) drew a distinction between powers -especially the power of invading "the rights of others"-and privilege. These powers are matters of common law in England, and are liable to be restrained by the Court. Under the proposed amendment, the House of Representatives could pass a resolution that would have the force of law to an extent denied to be a similar resolution in the House of Commons. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In deference to the opinion expressed on the other side, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. Leave given. Clause as read agreed to. END QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
QUOTE 49 Privileges etc. of Houses The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. 50 Rules and orders 8-9-2011 Page 83 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
45
84
Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to: (i) the mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld; (ii) the order and conduct of its business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House. END QUOTE Hansard 21-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Will the honorable member explain what is the meaning of the words "derogating from freedom of trade and commerce"?
10
15
Dr. QUICK.-It would prevent the placing of any obstruction in the way of river navigation or railway carriage. It would prevent anything in the nature of [start page 1258] a rate which would derogate from the freedom of trade between two colonies-which would take away from the freedom of trade. Therefore, I would suggest that if this clause is to be pushed forward tonight, it should be amended by inserting the words which are contained in the original clause. END QUOTE
20
Hansard 12-2-18900 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates QUOTE Mr. W. McMILLAN Surely, in the case of these Australian Colonies, each possessing within itself, as it does, not only a seacoast, but one touching the broad oceans of the world, and so far having the great advantage for which countries like Germany and Russia are at the present time fighting so hard, namely, a means of getting out to the high seas, it is absolutely necessary that if we have a Federal Parliament it should not be a mongrel Parliament, but a sovereign body which would be respectfully recognised by every independant state, and which would have within itself such freedom of action and such power that no other country on the face the globe would be able to override it END QUOTE Hansard 12-2-18900 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN HALL. It is said that history repeats itself, and we shall, I feel confident, have another instance of it. In the Northern Hemisphere the old Empire has shown to the world how it is possible to combine the greatest amount of individual freedom and liberty with most absolute security for life, property, and order; and I believe it will be our great glory that in the Southern Hemisphere, and in these Southern Seas, we shall repeat the lesson which the dear old mother country has taught the North, and that this great Australian Dominion will prove a centre of liberty, civilization, and light throughout the length and breadth of the Pacific. END QUOTE Hansard 21-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Yes, that would be the only difference, and the question is whether it is worth while to make it operate in that way, because it may be taken that there is in the Constitution, without the latter part of clause 95, an implication that any law or regulation of commerce or revenue having the effect of derogating [start page 1261] from freedom of trade or commerce between the states shall be null and void. END QUOTE Hansard 13-2-1890 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES. I have confidence that that policy will gain strength in the next appeal to the people, and I tell this Conference that, whether we federate or not, I shall not abate one jot of my efforts to promote the noble policy of freedom for the exertions of civilized men. I only mention my determination, as a citizen of New South Wales, to still promote our own policy, first, that there may be no misunderstanding in the matter, and, secondly, to show the genuineness of my professions. 8-9-2011 Page 84 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
85
END QUOTE Hansard 13-2-1890 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES We are told that we shall be overwhelmed in the Federal Parliament by those who favour the opposite policy. Even if that fact could be demonstrated to me, it would in no [start page 89] way turn my course in seeking to build up in these colonies a Federal Dominion. I would still vote for the same policy; and, though the first wave of Parliamentary authority might be against it, I should have no less confidence in its ultimate triumph believing as I do that it is based on principles which are eternal-the principles of justice, of freedom, and of human brotherhood-of the ultimate ascendancy of which I have no fear. That in no way intimidates me, or qualifies my desire to enter into a Federal Government END QUOTE Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DIBBS: I object, in connection with the independent state of New South Wales-a state as independent as any in the world, even England itself, so far as the freedom of our position is concerned-to the word "province." There may be something more dignified in the use of the word "state." We are not going to become provinces. I do not think we are going to give up the individual rights and liberties which we possess, and which those who have gone before us have fought for, to become mere provinces under a federal form of government. We may take the more dignified form of "states." Whilst we have endeavoured to put before the people of New South Wales, in these resolutions, a sort of opiate, something assuring to their minds that in joining a federal union we give up nothing of our territorial rights, words have been inserted in them which I shall do my utmost in Committee to strike outexcept in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and authority of the national federal government. I do not know the meaning of these words, and no hon. gentleman who has yet spoken has given any clear interpretation of them. It is sufficient for us, in enunciating a principle upon which the basis of a constitution shall be prepared, to see that the territorial rights and privileges of each colony shall be preserved to each state but when you come to consider the condition of a surrender, and the question of the power of enforcing such surrender is placed in the hands of the federal government, then your provinces or your states will be no party to the proceeding. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception. END QUOTE . Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: We ought to leave it open to this extent, that while we agree upon essentials, and express ourselves fully and freely upon all our views, still, so far as our views are not negatived by any principle here laid down, their embodiment in any resolution may stand over for Select Committee and afterwards [start page 20] for Committee of the whole House, when they may be debated with the freest publicity and fullest freedom. I believe we shall by this process best arrive at conclusions; not that, as many of us would like. we shall be able to drive our own particular views to an issue at once, but we shall discuss all these matters, both constitutionally and otherwise, and then we may arrive at views which, though contrary to our present opinions, shall essentially represent the views of those who sent us here to deal with the problems we have to discuss. END QUOTE . Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: 8-9-2011 Page 85 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
86
The remainder, namely, Resolution 2, expresses the chief powers and functions which ought to be granted to the federated people, in order to secure the complete freedom with which it is proposed to constitute them. The first is that there should be a Parliament, and next that the Parliament should consist of two Houses. In support of the general way in which it was thought advisable to frame these resolutions it may be contended that I should have left the idea of the two Houses out of the resolutions. I take it that we are a body of gentlemen who have really considered the question, and, inasmuch as we have made ourselves familiar with the literature on the subject, I take it there is no one here who will for one moment imagine that any form of government by a Parliament consisting of one House, could be designated a Federation. The individualism of the States after Federation is of as much interest to each colony as the free exercise of national powers is essential to that aggregation of colonies which we express in the term Federation. If the one trenches upon the other, then so far as the provinces assert their individuality overmuch the fear is an approach to a mere loose confederation, not a true Federation. The fear on the other hand is, if we give the power to encroach, that is, if we represent the federated people only, and not the States in their entities, in our Federation, then day by day you will find the power to make this encroachment will be so gladly availed of that, day by day and year by year, the body called the Federation will more nearly approach the unified or "unitarian" system of government. We cannot adopt any form of government the tendency of which will be, as time goes on, to turn the Constitution towards unification on the one hand, and towards a loose confederacy on the other. (Hear, hear.) We must observe that principle. or else we do not observe the charge laid upon us by the Enabling Act, which lays on us the duty to frame a "Federal" Constitution under the Crown. END QUOTE Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE [start page 1012] Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment which has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that we make an alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these disqualifications shall operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides. The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making provision exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power? Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the adoption of the constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament. I would ask hon. members also to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance, the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may change. It may be very different twenty years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony." As Sir Samuel Griffith has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In New Zealand felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that which have taken place in New Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause as it stands you will put it in the power of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the qualification by making a change in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal parliament, and that it ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the construction of the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter. The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of allegiance. The first part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of it. For instance, it says, "Any person who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power." The clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed. But, once a man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because a thing is done. The amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in which the matter should be put would be, until the removal of the disqualification caused by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the clause; but the wording of the clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to the federal parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted. The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in 8-9-2011 Page 86 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
87
the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country for the purpose of joining in legislation. An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted? The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie! Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points! The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to be supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it is quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I might say that, although it is far less objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment that has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE.-You cannot impose exceptional treatment upon the citizens of another state; that applies to everything. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution. END QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 87 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
88
. Hence, any purported COAG (Council of Australian Government) decisions such as regarding anti terrorist laws neither can be held applicable to undermine the constitutional rights enshrined in the Constitution. . Hansard 23-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON: I believe that, with certain alterations in the financial provisions, that Bill is a measure under which the colonies could even now safely federate. Not that I say it is the best Bill that could be framed; but I do believe it is a well-devised and well-drawn Constitution, and a Constitution [start page 11] under which a free people-making such amendments from time to time as necessity will require, and the powers given by the Constitution will allow-might live in perfect freedom and with perfect security. END QUOTE . Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole of the Constitution. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws. END QUOTE Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) Sir GEORGE GREY: I wish to answer the last hon. member, who has made a very interesting speech, but who, I think, has misunderstood the subject in part. In point of fact, what I am aiming at is this: I believe that in the old constitutions, and in some of the new constitutions, a machinery has been set up which virtually takes all liberty from the people, or at any rate takes a very great amount of liberty from the people. We are told that in Western Australia they have the power of altering their own Constitution. But they can do that only with the consent of a council nominated for six years. That is no liberty at all to the people. I believe that in this colony there is a nominated upper house and plural voting. There is, probably, plural voting to a great extent in Western Australia. It will take, perhaps, a term of many years to work off those burdens which are imposed upon the people-a term of very many years I should think-whereas at the moment when you are framing a new constitution, seeing that in every federal constitution certain provisions are made for the government of the states, I ask that a similar provision should be made for the government of the states here. I deny that, as an hon. member said, this is any interference with state constitutions by this body. That is an absolute misunderstanding of the case. What we propose is to authorise the people of the states, if they are dissatisfied with their form of government, to alter it. We have been entirely misunderstood on that subject. This Convention is not asked to exercise the smallest interference; but surely, at the moment when you say you are about to confer great benefits on all [start page 494] Australasia, it is not too much to say to those people who may feel that they are suffering under a form of constitution which is not liberal, and does not give fair play to the intellect and the energies of all its inhabitants, that if the great majority of the people of the state choose to interfere with their constitution and give themselves a more liberal one, they shall have the power to do so. I deny that I have proposed any interference at all, or that I have asked hon. members of this assembly to do anything which they ought not to do. On the contrary, I have besought them not to interfere with the powers of the general legislature or with the powers of the states in the manner I saw they were disposed to do, but to leave them absolute 8-9-2011 Page 88 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
89
liberty. I say that, at this time of giving freedom to all Australia, we should tell the people of the states that if they please to alter their form of state government they may do it themselves, without any reference to the British Parliament-without any reference to the British Crown necessarily-but entirely of their own free will make such alterations as they believe will lead to their happiness. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has anyand if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.-A measure would be valid while it was a Bill, and invalid when it became a law. Mr. ISAACS.-That is a very terse and correct way of putting it, and it proves the absurdity of the provision. We are, in my opinion, making the Senate too strong a body. To allow these matters to be carried into the Supreme Court is to say that the Senate cannot protect itself, and that the states cannot protect themselves. Surely that is not to be thought of for a moment. We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. We shall be making the Supreme Court, not the master, but the tyrant of the Constitution, by inserting a clause of this kind. I do strongly appeal to my honorable friends to alter the clause in some way. My view is that we should put in the word "proposed." At all events, we should do something in this direction, and we should at least make a distinct provision that if a Bill does not comply with this clause, the invalidity should go no further than the additional matter. That could be worked out no doubt in an Appropriation Bill, but you could not work it out in a Taxation Bill, because where two subjects were dealt with you could not tell which was the additional matter. You might make such a provision with regard to the additional matter in Appropriation Bills. The court could then say that certain items were not for the annual services of the year. They would be invalid, and the remainder of the Bill would be valid, but that would lead to the difficulty of the court having to determine what were the ordinary annual services of the year. Mr. BARTON.-Are not the annual services the annual expenditure proper to the public service?
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Mr. ISAACS.-Supposing that some compensation were being paid to a discharged public servant. That would not come within the ordinary annual services.[start page 2003] It would not be proper to the public service of the Commonwealth. It would not be a payment for services rendered in the future, but for services in the past. We all know that in connexion with the ordinary annual Appropriation Bills questions arise that make it very difficult to say what is and what is not an ordinary annual service. END QUOTE 8-9-2011 Page 89 Re: State Land tax FREEDOM OF SPEECH Infringement Notice- etc MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL Our name is our motto! PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free download of documents from http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
90
.
Considering the above we then have to ask how on earth can we have any kind of government pestering citizens about alleged infringements rather than first clean up its own mess? What is there to be gained in safety to have innocent motorist falsely booked for speeding, parking, etc, merely as was reported on television that a enforcement agency has to make up its quota of Infringement Notices and so issue fraudulent Infringement Notices for this and the Infringement Registrar complies with this elaborate swindle.
.
10
If politicians had to be fined for every mistake they made in the same kind of punishment as measured out upon motorist then most politicians will be financially bankrupt, besides being already generally morally bankrupt.
.
15
With our liberties guaranteed in the constitution now so to say being up for grabs because politicians couldnt care less about the harm they inflict upon innocent motorist and the destruction of their lives then none day citizens will act in kind and then politicians will be no more as such and only can suffer the legal consequences for their deeds and so their officials who acted in contempt to the will of the People, so the constitution.
.
20
Time is running out to address matters appropriately before others will do it for you!
.

.

.
25 .
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

110908-Premier Ted Baillieu-Re State Land Tax - Freedom of Speech - Infringement

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

110908-Premier Ted Baillieu-Re State Land Tax - Freedom of Speech - Infringement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

Mr Ted Baillieu Premier 5

END QUOTE http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm QUOTE 45

END QUOTE http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm QUOTE

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear:

QUOTE 16-2-2011 EMAIL 10.02AM

110207-Premier Kristina Keneally-Re STATE LAND TAX - etc.pdf (352KB) (199B)

acknowledgement.pdf (250KB) (188B)

State Revenue Office C/o Mr Ian Low Email: sro.vic.gov.au

QUOTE 2-6-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

STATE REVENUE OFFICE VICTORIA www.sro.vic.gov.au

Re: State Land tax - etc 15

Critical might be the claim:

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

17 Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

Re: State Land tax - etc 10

END QUOTE And

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

QUOTE Hansard 18-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. 30

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

Re: State Land tax - etc AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

27 Critical might be the claim:

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

30 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

5 Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

Cc: * Mr John Brumby, Premier, john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au * Mr Robert Pincevic

As I stated in my previous correspondence also:

We now look brat the provision of the CEA1918; 30

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

Mr John Brumby, Premier john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

Re: State Land tax etc

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

Cc: * Mr Robert Pincevic

As pointed out in previous correspondence;

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

15 . Awaiting your response, 20

Our name is our motto!

Premier Kristina Keneally <thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au>

The evidence is in the constitution itself, which states:

69 Transfer of certain departments 40

HANSARD 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 50

EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT!

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!

There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;

It should be understood that while it was stated

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

. And now some further quotations: . 35

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE