1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Malcolm Turnbull

Cc:

10

6-10-2015

Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20151006-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Malcolm Turnbull- Re TPP deal-etc

15

20

25

30

35

40

Malcolm,
Reportedly the Federal government signed a TPP (See Trans-Pacific free trade deal
agreed creating vast partnership <http://act.sumofus.org/go/11541?t=4&akid=14168.1667603.doTZMN> ,
BBC, 5 October 2015), and as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that the Commonwealth
of Australia has the constitutional powers to enter into treaties.
Just in case you overlooked it:
Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution,
where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the
empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom,
and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties,
but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they
neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think,
ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes.
END QUOTE
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
Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible government
in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words.

45

50

END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
p1
6-10-2015
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 admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

2
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

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
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

Where the Federal Government is to act as the agent for the People then it must seek and
obtain consent for its action. Where the TPP is conducted in secrecy then the required consent
cannot be obtained from the People.
Where for example the TPP would allow someone to litigate against the Commonwealth of
Australia in a foreign court in direct violation of Section 75 of the constitution.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE

75 Original jurisdiction of High Court

In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
(ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;
(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth,
is a party;
(iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of
another State;
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the
Commonwealth; the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

30

35

END QUOTE

40

The Commonwealth can only legislate to enforce any part of the TPP for so far it is within its
legislative powers and any part not within its legislative powers is null and void. As our
constitution requires UNIFORM legislation throughout the Commonwealth, the Federal
government has no legislative powers to enter in a treaty that may conflict to this.

(at 102-103)
45

Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 &
S179/2012,
QUOTE
Applicable principles
102

50

55

The Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible government. Sections 7 and 24 of
the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be "directly chosen by the people".
Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office "for a longer period than three months unless he is
or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives". Those who are elected as members of
the Parliament and those who are appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily accountable to "the
people" referred to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the Constitution shall not be altered
except in the manner provided in that section; in particular, only "if in a majority of the States a majority of
the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the

p2
6-10-2015
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 admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

3
proposed law". As the whole Court said in Lange1, it follows from these and other provisions that
"[f]reedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of
that system of representative government which the Constitution creates".
103

Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable

incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom cannot be curtailed by
the exercise of legislative or executive power2 and the common law cannot be inconsistent with it. But
the freedom is not absolute and it follows that the limit on legislative power is also not absolute.

QUOTE

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(at 346) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
In the setting of the Australian Constitution, a system of representative government is the constitutional
imperative upon which the implied freedom is founded.
END QUOTE

Fancy attending to a court case instructing a lawyer (as your agent) and he/she then refuses to
disclose to you what is going on. The moment a lawyer does so he/she no longer can be deemed
to act as an agent. Likewise, where the Federal Government refuses to inform We, the People,
what the negotiations were about as to seek our approval means that any signing of a TPP must
be deemed without lawful authority.
From: Max Bolte <dovedale@iprimus.com.au> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:42:30 +1100
QUOTE
We've just found out that our worst fears have come true: TPP negotiators in Atlanta have just finalised the
TPP text. But it's not over yet. Will you commit to fighting the TPP until it's dead?
Say <http://act.sumofus.org/go/11555?t=1&akid=14168.1667603.doTZMN>
END QUOTE

While the Federal Government may have its 21st Century Cabinet governance of faceless
people deciding matters, reality is this is not a constitutional acceptable process, and cannot be
used to detract from our constitutional embedded legal principles!
We have Australian businesses which need to plan ahead as to future overhead cost, etc, and no
Federal Government can undermine this with secret trade deals where another viable business
would be financially harmed. Neither can the Parliament vote on the TPP to which the People
themselves had no knowledge and as such never authorised their representative to act for them.
Responsible Government cannot be deemed to exist where a veil of secrecy exist preventing
the electors to hold their representatives accountable. Hence the parliament cannot ratify (If they
were to do so at all!) the TPP in any way without first allowing sufficient time for the electors to
be able to make an informed decision to advise their local Member of Parliament about their
desires in that regard.
I look forwards to your positive reply!
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.

45

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response,

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

p3
6-10-2015
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 admin@inspectorrikati.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati