20150113-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator Cory Bernardi - Re 18c Etc

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Senator Cory Bernardi
Cc:
10
13-1-2015
cory@corybernardi.com
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

Mr Tony Abbott PM
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150113-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Senator Cory Bernardi - Re 18c etc
15
Cory,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and retired Professional advocate (where I also represented
solicitors and barrister in litigation) I desire to explain what the true meaning and application
stands for in regard of certain issues.
20
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4160760.htm
QUOTE
Senator Cory Bernardi calls for new debate on racial vilification
South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi has renewed calls for changes to the Racial
Discrimination Act to allow unfettered debate of terrorism and other issues.
25
The government last year dropped plans to abolish provisions in Section 18c of the Act
which make it illegal to "insult offend or humiliate" people on the basis of race.
Senator Bernardi argued for those provisions to be scrapped. He now wants that issue reopened.
30
"Any suggestion that we shouldn't have freedom of speech or shouldn't be able to discuss
controversial issues because we're going to insult and offend some others I think hands
those who want to stifle our freedoms a victory," he told ABC NewsRadio's Marius
Benson.
"I'm not prepared to do that under any circumstances. I want to see this country maintained
as a harmonious one and I want to protect and preserve the freedoms that we have."
35
END QUOTE
And I wrote to you

QUOTE
From: Cory Bernardi <cory@corybernardi.com>
To: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
Cc:
Date: Monday, January 12, 2015 07:04 pm
Subject: Message Acknowledgement from CoryBernardi.com
p1
13-1-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
Thanks for the message you sent to me today via my website.
10
Due to the high volume of correspondence I receive it isn't possible to respond to every message personally, however
please be assured your communication will have been received and read by me.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
Cory Bernardi
Liberal Senator for South Australia
Your message:
First Name
Gerrit Hendrik
Last Name
Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Email
mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com
State
Victoria
Purpose
Comment/Other
Question/Comment
Cory, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I take the position that the Framers of the Constitution embed in the
constitution political and religious liberty as well as that the Commonwealth had no legislative powers as to
race issues against the "general community".
If you provide an email address I will set it out in more detail, quoting the Framers of the Constitution.
15
END QUOTE
I will now attend to this matter.
20
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
1.
25
30
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
p2
13-1-2015
3
END QUOTE
10
15
20
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
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 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: I think it is unkind, when struggling with one misfortune, to be reminded of another. The
difficulty of dealing with taxation cannot be mitigated by remembering that we have an upper house. I rose
simply to point out that if these debates are, as they will be, criticised by the enemies of federation, it is
desirable that our language should be as accurate as possible, and we should hasten to explain even apparent
misconceptions which may arise from the language of hon. members.
END QUOTE
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was drafted by the Framers of the
Constitution considering the following:
.
25

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
30
35
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.
40
END QUOTE
45

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
50
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
55
60
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
QUOTE
p3
13-1-2015
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
And we also should consider the following:

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
10
15
20
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
25
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
30
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws.
35
40
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
45
50
END QUOTE
Therefore, it should be clear that any race law enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia cannot
be held against the general community. The problem we have however is that the judges of the
High court of Australia are appointed regardless they may never have previously dealt with
constitutional issues, and hence they have their learner (P-Plate) while already deciding
constitutional issues. In University of Wollongong v Mohamed Naguib Fawzi Ahmed Metwally
& others [1984] HCA 74; (1984) 158 CLR 447 (22 November 1984) the High Court of Australia
p4
13-1-2015
10
15
20
5
was dealing with s109 and its meaning. And seems to have relied upon numerous precedents,
even so they were handed down at a time the High Court of Australia didnt allow the Hansard to
be used, which it changed since the Tasmania Dam case. Many past decisions made without
considering the Hansard records were then misinterpreted and as such the High Court of
Australia relying on them clearly is a continued error. Moreover, judges tend to refer to what the
meaning of words are in other jurisdiction rather than to consider what it was that the Framers of
the Constitution stated and as such is applicable.
The High Court of Australia therefore hold that s51 is providing concurrent legislative powers
It argued that one has to consider words in the way it is used in other countries and that States
can continue to legislate but Section 109 provides that the Commonwealth law is overriding.
Reality is that s109 has the purpose that where there is existing colonial/State law and the
Commonwealth commences to legislate within its legislative powers or incidental to it then s109
applies. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that concurrent legislative powers only
exist until the Commonwealth commences to legislate then as like s52 it becomes exclusive
legislative powers.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
25
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
30
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
.
35

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

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
55

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
.

p5
13-1-2015
6
QUOTE
10
15
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
.
The latter quotation makes it very clear that the moment the commonwealth commences to
legislate upon a certain subject within s51 then it no longer is a concurrent legislative power but
becomes an exclusive (for the Commonwealth) legislative power. Hence, other than as to
taxation issues where the Commonwealth has not exercise taxation in certain areas all other
subject within s51 of the constitution are and remain to be indefinitely exclusive Commonwealth
powers.
I will not go into details of numerous other cases but safe to say that for example Victorian laws
regarding speed cameras usage are unconstitutional where those speed cameras were not
verified by the Commonwealth of Australia.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
20
25
30
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
We have for example professional truck drivers who are booked for speeding by equipment that
is not constitutionally valid and some lo\se their earning abilities, lose their family and even end
up committing suicide and this all while politicians in the Parliament are more interested for
themselves to have this government sponsored terrorism continue then to stand up and be a real
sentry.
.
35
40
I on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in the County

Court of Victoria in both cases on compulsory voting aster a 5 year epic legal battle. As such, I
proved in court matters and may state that despite about 50 submissions by me on numerous
constitutional issues not a single Attorney-General challenged my submissions!
Details were published in CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC of my
book:
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 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
One of those issues I raced was the Racial Discrimination Act being unconstitutional. I am aware
of the decision of KOOWARTA V_ BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
45
ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3

County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS- EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-TREATIES

50
KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168

COURT
High Court of Australia
Gibbs C.J.(1), Stephen(2), Mason(3), Murphy(4), Aickin(5), Wilson(6)
p6
13-1-2015
7
and Brennan(7) JJ.
41. In Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen, I would allow the demurrer. (at p207)
5
42. In Queensland v. The Commonwealth, I would declare that ss. 9 and 12 of

the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), as amended, in so far as those
sections apply within the State of Queensland, are outside the powers of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth and are invalid. (at p207)
10
In my view, for what it is worth, Gibbs CJ was correct, that the external affairs powers
couldnt extend the powers provided for in Section 51 of the Constitution. Indeed, the
framers made clear that without referendum the commonwealth couldnt give itself more
legislative powers!
The case KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 was however
decided against Gibbs CJ.
Indicating that the judges really didnt bother to read the Debates as otherwise they would
have been aware that the framers strictly curtailed Commonwealth legislative powers to be
only varied by way of Section128!
15
20
END QUOTE
We have to consider the following also:
25
30
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding one-"External
affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true; but there are a very large
number of people who look forward with interest to the Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part
of the British Empire, the regulation of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to
whether the one thing is included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in
this question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the subsection may
do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be pressed.
35
40
END QUOTE
45
50
Again it was stated The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain
external affairs and proper reading of the debates was that this related to existing legislative
powers the Commonwealth was provided with in s51 and s52 of the constitution and not
otherwise.
One cannot have that one section prohibits race legislation against the general community and
that somehow then external affairs were to be to allow race legislation against the general
community.
.
55
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
p7
13-1-2015
10
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
And also consider:

.

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
15
20
25
30
35
40
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation
that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks
and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
45
END QUOTE
50
From the above it must be clear that the Commonwealth cannot get though some backdoor
manner any additional legislative powers such as by way of using external affairs powers.
.
55
60
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
.
p8
13-1-2015
9
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

QUOTE 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
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
p9
13-1-2015
10
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
There is a lot more to this as State constitutions cannot be valid unless they were approved by
State referendums since federation!
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

QUOTE
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
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
Safe to say the State Parliament lack any legislative powers as to race laws (other than within s25
of the constitution) and the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional. For
what it is worth s51(xxvi) was created to legislated to discriminate against a particular race and
cannot have an opposite meaning for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders!
While personally I oppose racial discrimination, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST however I must
reflect what the Framers of the Constitution embedded as a legal principle.
There therefore can be absolutely no doubt that within the context of the constitution
neither the states or the Commonwealth can prohibit racial discrimination, and any laws
purporting to do so are unconstitutional and as such ULTRA VIRES. And it is not the High
Court of Australia which invented in the 1989 Albert Lange case that freedom of political
communication exist or is implied in the constitution but that the Framers of the Constitution
embedded this with its above quoted statement of this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty.
This is why we need the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!), a
council that advises the Parliament, the People, the government and the Courts as to the true
meaning and application of the constitution and so that ordinary citizens can freely move about
without undue legislation hampering their rights and freedoms.
.
45

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
50
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
55
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p10
13-1-2015

20150113-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator Cory Bernardi - Re 18c Etc

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20150113-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator Cory Bernardi - Re 18c Etc

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au

And I wrote to you

I will now attend to this matter.

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

And we also should consider the following:

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

Hansard 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

I on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in the County

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3

FOREIGN AFFAIRS- EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-TREATIES

KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168

42. In Queensland v. The Commonwealth, I would declare that ss. 9 and 12 of

We have to consider the following also:

Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

And also consider:

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

Você também pode gostar