1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Adam Giles Chief Minister N.T.

12-1-2016

chief.minister@nt.gov.au
Ref; 20160112-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Adam Giles Chief Minister N.T. Re Port of Darwin-etc

Sir,

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

I received a copy of your 11 January 2016 correspondence to Mr Riley regarding the Port of
Darwin (including Port of Darwin Act 2015) and as a CONSTITUTIONALIST have my
concerns that the agreement with Landbridge group, or for that with any other business, would be
unconstitutional where this relates to additional charges not ordinary being the cost associated
with providing port facilities. It appears to be clear from the limited information you provided
that Landbridge group pays the N.T. Government $506million for a 99 year. As such the N.T.
government is dealing with it as a financial investment scheme in clear violation to section 92 of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
QUOTE
92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether
by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of
customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on
thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty
chargeable on the importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the
goods on their importation.
END QUOTE

It is totally irrelevant for this if the Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Turnbull or anyone else for that
matter approves of the deal because no one is above the constitution.
To keep it short, I will refrain from extensively quoting the Framers of the Constitution, but safe
to say they specifically held that a State couldnt charge more than the actual cost of the facilities
required to be provided. Hence, where this is clearly an exercise by the N.T. government to be
paid $506 million then this is monies not related to the providing of port facilities but a tax on
those using the port facilities, where the business operating the port will have to recoup monies it
paid out to obtain the lease.
I understand similar schemes are proposed such as regarding the Port of Melbourne, but they are
in my view unconstitutional, as I wrote in the past to the Victorian Government.
For the above I view any agreement entered into is NULL AND VOID.
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

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!)
45

Awaiting your response,

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

p1
12-1-2016
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 at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati (Documents about constitutional/legal issues)