20200127-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Water & Australia's Political System Versus TDS

20200127-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
ISSUE –
Re Water & Australia's political system versus TDS
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, what is TDS standing for?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, we have politicians who are pursuing, even by backdoor
manner, to have a REPUBLIC and it is time they learn from the “Trump Derangement
Syndrome” how problematic this can be.
Here we have a US constitution that specifically states about IMPEACHMENT issues and well
the utter and sheer rubbish then has been going on crippling any proper operation of the House of
Representatives and now the Senate underlines how terrible this is when you got politicians
persisting in unconstitutional conduct. The last thing we need is State/Federal Republican kind of
system that might eventuate the same in Australia.
* Have you followed what goes on with the impeachment against President Donald J Trump at
all?
**#** Indeed I have. I consider it very important to grasp what they are doing because the last
thing we need is this kind of abuse of power to be used in Australia if they went down the road
for a republic. And, here we have a House of Representatives failing any proper provision for the
President to have his constitutional rights and refusing to acknowledge the roles of the courts as
the impartial judiciary and this claiming it is all “urgent” and then holding it up for 33 days.
No matter if one likes or doesn’t like the Monarchy it is a system that avoids this kind of rot now
eventuating in the US.
* Are you trying to indicate that we should have an unelected president?
**#** I am not at all suggesting any republican format as I view the system we have now is the
best. No crippling of the Parliament because of political disputes. From the video’s I have been
watching it appears to be clear that the Democrats are not at all concerned about the constitution,
even so they claim this, but it is their defiance of the 2016 presidential election outcome and then
claimed it was a fluke now they are seeking to deny the electors to vote for President J Trump
again. Even having sought to prevent him to be a candidate. We actually have similar problems
already because the court in the USA held that California was wrong and overturned its
legislation to deny President J Trump to be a candidate. Yet, in Australia we have this rule about
paying $1,000 or more to be a candidate and or other kind of conditions which are beyond the
constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. Even a Commonwealth electoral roll is
unconstitutional. As I proved in both appeals on 19 July 2006 compulsory, voting is
unconstitutional. Section 41 of the constitution makes it abundantly clear that the right for
anyone to vote in a federal election relies upon being a State/Territorial elector.
* So your concern is that to have a President elected, if there was a Republic, then there ought to
be safeguards that were to prevent a situation as now is played off in the USA?
p1 27-1-2020 © 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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
**#** That is correct. However, you neither would want that a President is appointed by the
Government of the Day because then you get a mere lapdog who does what he is told.
* What about this Aboriginal issue and proposed water referendum?
**#** I noticed that Aboriginals were making clear that any day to celebrate “Australia Day”
would be unacceptable. And then we had this article by some lecturer named Rowan Nicholson
at https://theconversation.com/yes-this-continent-was-invaded-in-1788-an-international-law-expert-explains-
130462?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20January%2027
%202020%20-
%201518514467&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20January%2027%202020%20-
%201518514467+CID_41d4b5ed30695d4272b3667610f31f9a&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Yes%2
0this%20continent%20was%20invaded%20in%201788%20%20an%20international%20law%20expert%20explains
Yes, this continent was invaded in 1788 – an international law expert explains
I posted on Facebook my comment. After all what is “International law” really? It are really not
“laws” at all but are agreements between a group of nations that cannot override any countries
constitutional provisions where such country is not part of this group. It falls outside the
provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as is the
International Criminal Court as does the UN. We the electors decide out legal system and our
constitutional rules. And we now have that the Federal Government desires to amend the
constitution with Constitution Alteration (Water Resources) 2019 to allow it to legislate as to
water issues even so already having done so way back with the Water Act 2007.
Moreover, they have legislated “Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Act
2019” as some form of appeasement in violation to ss51(iv) “between States, or between
residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State;” and the legal
principle embedded in the constitution that all laws of the Commonwealth shall be “UNIFORM”
Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public life. I am an
Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I am associated assume a
position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE
William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official and labour
movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a bootmaker.
END QUOTE
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that when a person was naturalised then they were
entitled to the same rights as any other Australian. Yet this form of appeasement to make special
provisions for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is unconstitutional
*.Doesn’t it fall within Ss51(xxvi)?

**#** Not at all. This section only allows to “DISCRIMINATING” against a race and not
against the GENERAL COMMUNITY!
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-

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?
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.
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.
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.
END QUOTE
Remember what eventuated with Chamberlain appeasement to Adolf Hitler about

Czechoslovakia? And well this is what I view is now eventuating with politicians and
Aboriginals. They are selling themselves out to violate constitutional legal principles. We had
Aboriginals claiming all they wanted was an “apology” well why then now all those protests
against Australia Day no matter which day it was to be held. As such even changing it from 26
January doesn’t satisfy them. Those who migrated to the Commonwealth of Australia and had
their children born here now essentially are being told that nevertheless they do not have the
same rights as those claiming to be Aboriginals.
This is also why we have a danger of having a similar system as the Trump Derangement
Syndrome being the Immigrant (and their descendants) Derangement Syndrome.

There are ample of persons of Aboriginal heritage who do not whatsoever participate in this
Immigrant (and their descendants) Derangement Syndrome. This is because they wisely
decided that they were having equal rights as any other citizen and took this and established
careers they and their families benefitted from.
*. And your views about the water issue?
**#** Let us consider what the real issues are? I have written numerous times about it all and
quite frankly hate to repeat it time and time again.
This whole Darling-Basin issue was well beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth
and so the unconstitutional funding.
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
To my knowledge they spent a large portion of the time that intervened in making exhaustive enquiries about
the water supply of the Murray basin and what quantity could be used or diverted. They caused researches to
be made which had not up till then been made, and without which no determination could be arrived at. Mr.
Gordon has stated his case fully and clearly, but he will admit that if there were cast upon him the task of
determining how these waters should be apportioned the task would be almost beyond the capacity of man.
The position is as Mr. Carruthers has clearly stated. First of all, if it be a legal issue, this is practically a
question of international law, and though it may be the custom of adjoining nations in the old world,
and also in the new, to agree to conferences in regard to the navigation or the use of the waters of rivers, I
know of no power to coerce any self-governing colony into holding such a conference. I am not arguing
against the reasonableness of the hon. member's claim, nor am I contending that New South Wales in this
instance would not be acting a courteous part in agreeing to a conference. It seems to me highly desirable that
some friendly enquiry into this matter and into the circumstances surrounding it should be entered upon.
END QUOTE
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-If New South Wales and Victoria were private individuals, there is no doubt about your
right to stop undue interference with these waters.
Mr. GORDON.-That is a right founded on natural justice.
Mr. HIGGINS.-It is a legal right where individuals are concerned, but the difficulty is that the colony is
not an individual.
Mr. SYMON.-The only difficulty is, that as between states you cannot have the advantage of legal process
or enforcement of legal decrees. If you are left without that, what have you to appeal to?
Mr. ISAACS.-I would like to see the authority for it being a legal right.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No; I do not think that there is anything in the Bill that takes it away. Very well, then, if a
state law, or the action of the state, or the action of a citizen of a state, does not contravene Commonwealth
legislation under that power of legislation, granted in this Bill. the state law is still valid, and cannot be
touched or interfered with, and that I conceive is sufficient for the purpose of New South Wales under this
Constitution. Now, my honorable friend (Mr. Isaacs) yesterday, in that remarkably able and statesmanlike
speech which he made-one of the best speeches addressed to this Convention since it began its sittings in
Adelaide-mentioned state laws with regard to irrigation in the United States, especially state laws passed with
reference to the and country, and with reference to California. Now, while my honorable friend mentioned
those in support of his argument, all those instances are evidences that, under the operation of the trade and
commerce clause in America, the right is retained to the states, under the United States Constitution, to deal
with these matters, and is recognised by the courts. And if there were any doubt about that in our own' case,
we have only to refer to clause 99 of this Bill, which tells us that-
All powers which at the establishment of the Commonwealth are vested in the Parliaments of the
several colonies, and which are not by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, or withdrawn from the Parliaments of the several states, are reserved to, and shall
remain vested in, the Parliaments of the states respectively.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the reservation clause.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, the reservation clause. Now, that clause has a twofold operation. It means, first, that
the power to deal with water conservation and irrigation, which, if you rely on sub-section (1) alone,
finds no mention in this Constitution, and, therefore, is not a power given to the Commonwealth, but a
power retained in the states absolutely. And it means, in addition to that, that the states will retain
their power of dealing with the navigation of their rivers, except so far as those rivers fall under the
domination-if you like to use that large word-of the legislation of the Commonwealth, when the
Commonwealth chooses to legislate on the subject of navigation. So that the position of the state is
secure as regards the conservation and use of its waters, except to the extent that there may be an
actual navigation law passed by the Commonwealth, which may have the effect of limiting the state use
of the water of the rivers within that state.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 24-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-It would be the same as federalizing our lands.
Mr. OCONNOR.-It would, because the value of the land is inextricably mixed up
with the value of the water supply to it.
Mr. HIGGINS.-All conditions would apply to lands; all circumstances affect their value.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-What questions of law could the Inter-State Commission decide apart from questions of
fact?
Mr. DOBSON.-The Inter-State Commission could decide questions of law arising out of the fact that you
have, in spite of our friends from New South Wales, federalized your waters for navigation and irrigation,
and I do not believe that the High Court will ever hold that the waters of a river flowing between the
boundaries of two colonies belong to one state or the other. The court will say-"You have federalized your
waters," and will deal with them accordingly. For these reasons I shall feel bound to oppose the amendment.
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I hope that the Right Hon. Sir George Turner will not press this
amendment. I quite assent to the position that this Inter-State Commission should have the power of final
decision on questions of fact, and that there should be no appeal to the High Court on questions of fact.
Therefore what the honorable member fears could not possibly happen. The High Court ought not to have,
and could not have, any power to deal with questions of policy.
Mr. ISAACS.-Why?
Mr. OCONNOR.-Because there ought to be no power in the court to review decisions of the commission
on any question whatever except a question of law.

Mr. ISAACS.-But what is to prevent the High Court reviewing other decisions under this clause?
Mr. OCONNOR.-I am speaking of the clause as it ought to be. I am quite willing to accept the amendment
Mr. Holder suggests that the decisions of the Inter-State Commission shall not be reviewable except as to
matters of law. But I would point out to Sir George Turner that if some power is not given over the Inter-
State Commission you will make that commission an absolutely irresponsible body.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-That power ought to be in the Parliament, and not in the High Court.
Mr. OCONNOR.-That is going back to the old controversy. I leave aside for a moment the question
whether you are to give powers to the Inter-State Commission to decide as to rights. That question will be
raised by-and-by; but even taking the Inter-State Commission as now constituted under clause 96, it is
necessary there should be some power in the High Court to review the decisions of the Inter-State
Commission, where those decisions have gone beyond the powers which the Constitution has given to the
commission.
Mr. ISAACS.-Would not that come under sub-section (1) of clause 73?
Mr. OCONNOR.-I think it would, because you want to deal with the decision of the commission. I ask
honorable members to look at clause 96, constituting the Inter-State Commission. That clause reads as
follows:-
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
Parliament from time to time deems necessary, but so that the commission shall be charged with the
execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution, and of all laws
made thereunder relating to trade and commerce.
Now, that is a very necessary limitation of the powers of the Inter-State Commission. If that limitation was
not placed in this clause as it is, the Inter-State Commission would be constituted a body having powers
without limitations and you do not want to do that. How will this body exercise its powers? It may exercise
them by judicial acts, by decisions in regard to rights, and a number of other matters. If in those decisions it
goes beyond the limits of the Constitution as assigned to it, surely there must be power in the High Court to
review those decisions. It must be so, otherwise [start page 2278] you place the Inter-State Commission in an
irresponsible position; and all we claim here is, that if this Inter-State Commission does go beyond the law
and decides something that is illegal, there shall be a power of the High Court to review that decision.
Mr. VENN.-Prohibition will do that.
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, prohibition will not do it. Prohibition will do that where the Inter-State Commission
goes entirely outside its jurisdiction in reference to a subject-matter, but where the commission deals with a
matter which is within its jurisdiction, and may have exceeded its powers or decided contrary to the
Constitution in its decision on that subject, that is a matter which cannot be reached by prohibition. I find
myself at a loss to understand why honorable members who have created the Inter-State Commission, and
have limited its powers, should be afraid to submit the decision of that commission, not on questions of fact
and policy, but on questions of law, to the tribunal which we have set up to deal with these matters.
Mr. HIGGINS.-It is not a court; it is a jury of experts, like our Railways Commissioners.
Mr O'CONNOR.-The honorable member says it is not a court. It may or it may not be a court in the
technical sense of the word; but if it has power to give decisions, surely that is the first essential of a court;
and if it gives decisions which are not in accordance with the Constitution there should be some power of
reviewing them. I do put it to the committee that, if you place the Inter-State Commission in a position which
is absolutely irresponsible, there is no use whatever in placing limitations on its powers; and if you place
limitations on its powers, and give it certain duties to perform, there must be some way of providing that it is
kept within its powers, otherwise the rights which you give are simply illusory.
Mr. FRASER.-It has only the rights given to it by the Federal Parliament.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly; it has the rights given to it by the Parliament, and those rights must be given to
it under the Constitution.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-It gets rights under this Bill.
Mr. ISAACS.-Independent rights.
Mr. OCONNOR.-It gets rights under this Bill, but those rights can be of no value at all, unless the
limitations of the rights are fixed by the Parliament.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-You said that it got rights under the Parliament.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Of course it gets, as all these institutions do, its rights primarily from the Constitution,
but it gets the limitations of those rights from the Parliament, by clause 96. Of course, it altogether depends
on what view the committee take of the powers which they are going to place in the hands of this body.
Considering the powers of adjudication which you give to the Inter-State Commission, unless you provide
that the decisions which you give it the power to make are to be altogether irresponsible there must be a
power of appeal from such decisions. My honorable friend (Mr. Higgins) interjected that it is not a court. You
are in this difficulty: If it is not a court, if is not a body which has power to decide, you cannot have a
prohibition against it.
Mr. ISAACS.-Can't you?
Mr. HIGGINS.-You can get an injunction against the commission for going outside its powers.
Mr. OCONNOR.-What is the use of leaving it to a doubtful question of that kind?
Mr. HIGGINS.-That is not doubtful.
Mr. OCONNOR.-What is the use of leaving the matter to some learned arguments between lawyers as to
whether an injunction will or will not apply, when you can simply provide for the whole thing by enacting in
the Constitution that from its decisions, where the decisions go beyond its powers or it decides something
which [start page 2279] it has no right to decide, there should be an appeal?
Mr. HIGGINS.-Would you allow an appeal from directors of a company?
END QUOTE
It should be very clear that the Section 101 “Inter-State Commission” with its experts would
have been the appropriate way to deal with matters and this without the involvement of any
Minister to create some political tool out of it, and then if there was an issue in law to appeal then
a State could do so before the High Court of Australia.
*. Your message appears to be avoid political conflicts and act reasonably to all citizens and no
special rules for political point scorings.
**#** Precisely. Let us avoid the traps now played out in the USA where politics is grinding the
government to a halt and the “governing” is no more. We do not need a “referendum” to address
something that already is within the powers of the “Inter-State Commission”. Just that the
Federal government blatantly violate Section 101 to ensure there is a commissioner at the Inter-
State Commission who is not subject to any political ministerial direction but can rely upon
“experts”. The Commonwealth cannot harness legislative powers for themselves, even so already
unconstitutionally having done so, to undermine the States rights dealing with environment and
water issues.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

20200127-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Water & Australia's Political System Versus TDS

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

20200127-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Water & Australia's Political System Versus TDS

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20200127-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, what is TDS standing for?

p1 27-1-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

*.Doesn’t it fall within Ss51(xxvi)?

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

Remember what eventuated with Chamberlain appeasement to Adolf Hitler about

p3 27-1-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. GORDON.-That is a right founded on natural justice.

Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the reservation clause.

p5 27-1-2020 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. VENN.-Prohibition will do that.

Mr. ISAACS.-Independent rights.

Mr. ISAACS.-Can't you?

Mr. OCONNOR.-What is the use of leaving it to a doubtful question of that kind?

Mr. HIGGINS.-That is not doubtful.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Would you allow an appeal from directors of a company?

Você também pode gostar