130819-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Mr Kevin Rudd PM Re Jabs for Monies Tax Benefits - Religion- ETC

7/27/2019 130819-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Mr Kevin Rudd PM Re Jabs for Monies Tax Benefits - Religion- ETC

1/18

p1 19-8-2013INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr Kevin Rudd PM 19-8-2013

[email protected]

5

Cc: Mr Tony Abbott MPMr Malcolm Turnbull MP, [email protected]& everyone else

10 Ref: 130819-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to Mr Kevin Rudd PM Re Jabs for monies tax benefits - religion etc

Kevin,I have quoted below a email I received, which alleged that you are referring to a denial of

tax benefits to parents who refuse to have their child jabbed. lets make it clear. When first born15 son was jabbed, we had a friend happening to visit seeing our son turning blue that he drove us to

the hospital and since then we spend months attending to the children hospital, for brain scans,as they feared his brains could have been damaged. While his mother and I didnt realise at thetime that a immunisation can cause such problems, but we still didn t prevent our other 2children being immunised, nevertheless I can understand there are parents who rather take the

20 risk then to have a child suffering because of the jab.

On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC) in 2 appeals

before the County Court of Victoria.As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my ADDRESS TO THE COURT included the following,

25 which was not challenged by the prosecution (nor any other about 50 constitutional issues Isubmitted to the court)

QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURTAs shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an invasion as to his rights.

30 Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court.

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing anyreligion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for

35 prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious testshall be required as a qualification for any office or public trustunder the Commonwealth.

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI40 TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January

20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970

1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in theprevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it

45 being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used thewords "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it toformal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati


2/18




2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that iscontrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whoseconscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are

5 based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include thosewhose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy ofexempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely,should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its

10 coverage. Pp. 361-367.

And;

http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml15

Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization

Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter andsupport materials provided in the following link:

20 Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of arecognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does notrequire you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious

25 exemption to be challenged.

AndSome schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to

30 submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; donot feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.

AndMany times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with thelaw or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are

35 betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.

What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be asthis would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion asthis would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious

40 objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religiousperson as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITEDSTATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to nonreligious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly isentitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.

45 END QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

So on that basis, the Court could never convict me forFAILING TO VOTE

, because theelectoral act had an exclusion for religious objection and that means I was entitled to a non-religious objection also, as otherwise it is unconstitutional

50

Again:QUOTE

3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whoseconscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are

55 based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include thosewhose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source.

END QUOTE

QUOTE Sun, 18 Aug 2013 at 17:52 email
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtmlhttp://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptletterlaw.shtmlhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtmlhttp://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptletterlaw.shtml


3/18




Rudd measure links jabs to tax benefits.

FROM Jim TO You + 28 More

From

Jim

5 To

Andrew K.

Bruce & Gail H.

Daniel Bodkin

Any government policy or law financially penalising people for conscientiously dissenting against10 vaccinating their children is clearly a form of coercion, discrimination, financial blackmail and

unconstitutional "civil conscription" under s.51(23A) of the federal constitution.

Give Kevin "Krudd" and his Labor cronies the right message by voting them out of any power along with theLiberals, National and Greens clowns at the upcoming federal election. Australians have suffered enoughtmistreatment and abuse at the corrupt hands of these degenerate and incompetent NWO minions and fools.

15 Jim

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark

To: undisclosed-recipients:

Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 3:21 PM

20 Subject: Fwd: VERY SCARY:- If Rudd get in, he will give $2000+ tax benefits to parents of immunisedchildren ONLY... now there is an incentive to poison your kids... What happened to the principle of "DO NOHARM??"

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

25 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 12:32:21 +1000

Subject: VERY SCARY:- If Rudd get in, he will give $2000+ tax benefits to parents of immunised childrenONLY... now there is an incentive to poison your kids... What happened to the principle of "DO NOHARM??"

Rudd measure links jabs to tax benefits

30 news.ninemsn.com.au

August 18, 2013

Parents who register as "conscientious objectors" to prevent their children being vaccinated will miss out on afamily tax benefit supplement of more than $2000 if the Rudd government is re-elected.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will on Sunday announce the lifting of the existing exemption for such parents in35 a bid to lift childhood immunisation rates, News Corp Australia reports.

Under the proposal their children will have to be fully immunised in order to receive the Family Tax BenefitPart A end-of-year supplement.

40 The supplement is worth $726 per child each year. It is only paid once a child is fully immunised at one, twoand five years of age.

The government argues this provides families with an incentive of more than $2100 to ensure their childrenare fully immunised.

45 Under the latest Rudd proposal, exemptions will apply on medical and religious grounds only. (Maybe it istime to form our own new religion???)

The existence of unimmunised children has given rise to concerns that children in some communities are atrisk of contracting diseases such as measles and whooping cough. "The science cannot be disputed," News

50 Corp reported Mr Rudd as saying. (You have to wonder which science he is referring to? Perhaps that which
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:undisclosed-recipients:mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:undisclosed-recipients:mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/18




comes from the World Health Organisation run by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers???)

"Immunisation is the safest and most effective way for parents to protect their children from disease, and oneof the most important public health measures at our disposal." Says Rudd.

5 Deputy Greens leader Adam Bandt says his party will support the move.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/18/02/20/rudd-measure-links-jabs-to-tax-benefits

----This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally

privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or10 any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email. If you have

received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorizeddisclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability.

END QUOTE Sun, 18 Aug 2013 at 17:52 email

15 It is obviously nice to know what is constitutionally applicable but one should ask why did theAEC litigate against me at huge cost of lawyers? Surely they ought to have know what wasconstitutional applicable. Oops, I nearly forgot:Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National AustralasianConvention)

20 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.

END QUOTE.Hansard 19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates

25 QUOTEMr. CARRUTHERS:

This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.

END QUOTE

.30 A constitutional lawyer is an oxymoron like a fire bug fire fighter, or a humane killer. So,

forget about the so called constitutional lawyers who were litigating against me for about 5

years, only to be comprehensively defeagted..But with yourabout $122 million hospital funding (Sydney), the Commonwealth can only

35 provide :uniform funding. As I wrote to you on 2 July 2013, as to support my request to beappointed INTER-STATE COMMISSIONER (a non-political postion), the Parliament could

provide for legislation to give appropriate additional powers to the INTER-STATECOMMISSION to provide funding as might be need in regard to all hospitals. No pork barrelling kind of funding!

40 .And, as for immigration, we shopuld consider the following:.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE45 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 ofBritish subjects.Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view ofinserting the words "the Commonwealth."

50 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizenwithin its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that everycitizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have powerto determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in adefinition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the

55 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/18/02/20/rudd-measure-links-jabs-to-tax-benefitshttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/18/02/20/rudd-measure-links-jabs-to-tax-benefits


5/18




Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right todetermine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.

Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.END QUOTE

5 .Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTEMr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen isco-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject orcitizen in America. The moment be is under any

10 disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.END QUOTE

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

15 QUOTEMr. 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

20 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not theprovision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of thisdual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is

25 the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whetherexercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joiningthe Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the FederalParliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason whyit should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood

30 who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-ofhaving that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust theParliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I amnot prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for

joining the Union.

35 END QUOTE.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of40 federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on

the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution isto secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter againand again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised aslying at the very basis of this Constitution.

45 END QUOTE

QUOTE Part 2 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURTEx Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 S.R. N.S.W. 155 at 158; 55 W.N. 63 Jordan C.J.

This court however must take the act as it finds it, and cannot do violence to its language in order to bring50 within its scope, cases, which although within its mischief are not within its words.

The following ought to be applied perhaps to Shaw, Sue v Hilland the Sykes v Cleary cases, to mention a few, thisas those cases, in my view were based upon ill conceived reasoning, and not at all as to the intentions of the framersof the Constitution;

55Duncan v Queensland(1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)

That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was

very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney sitting.....


6/18




The arguments which now commend themselves to me as conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In myjudgement that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled.

The Shaw case;

5 In July 2001, the Minister cancelled the applicant's visa on the ground that he had a substantial criminalrecord and did not pass the character test as defined by HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 (6).

HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" Section501 does not apply to British citizens who arrived in Australia before 3 March 1986

10 There are only two heads of federal constitutional power that could arguably extend the operation ofHYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 to a

person such as the applicant who is a British citizen and who arrived in Australia in 1974. The first is theimmigration power; the second is the aliens power HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn49" [50] . A long line of authority

15 establishes that the immigration power does not authorise the Parliament to make laws with respectto persons who have immigrated to Australia, made their permanent homes here and become

members of the Australian community HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn50" [51] . Accordingly, the immigration

power did not authorise the enactment of HYPERLINK20 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 in so far as it purports

to apply to the applicant.The aliens power, however, gives the Parliament greater power over immigrants than the immigration

power. In Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn51" [52] , this Court held that any

25 immigrant who has not taken out Australian citizenship is an alien for the purpose of HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s51.html" s 51 (xix) of the Constitution.On that view of the aliens power, the Parliament can legislate for the deportation of persons who are

British citizens and have been permanent residents of Australia for many years. In Nolan, the Courtupheld an order of the Minister deporting Nolan, a citizen of the United Kingdom who had lived

30 permanently in Australia since 1967 but who had not taken out Australian citizenship.In Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l"fn52" [53] , however, a majority of this Court held that Nolan should be overruled in so far as it heldthat allBritish citizens living in Australia who had not taken out Australian citizenship were aliens for the

purpose of the Constitution. Taylor was a British citizen who had arrived in Australia in 1966 and had since35 lived here permanently. However, he had not taken out Australian citizenship. A majority of the Court

held that HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 of HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/" the Actcould not constitutionally authorise the deportation of Taylor.As I pointed out in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Te HYPERLINK

40 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn53" [54] , Re Patterson has no ratiodecidendi. The four majority Justices were Gaudron, Kirby and Callinan JJ and myself. Gaudron J heldthat Taylor was a member of the body politic that constituted the Australian community and that

British citizens who were members of that body politic and had been in Australia before 1987

HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn54" [55] , were not

45 aliens within the meaning of the Constitution. Kirby J held that Taylor was not an alien when he arrivedin Australia, that he "had been absorbed into the people of the Commonwealth" HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn55" [56] and that the Parliament could notretrospectively declare him to be an alien. I held that British immigrants who settled in Australia before1973 were subjects of the Queen of Australia and could not be "aliens" for the purpose of the Constitution.

50 I selected 1973 as the earliest date on which the constitutional power to legislate with respect to alienscould apply to British immigrants. I did so because 1973 was the year in which the Parliament

enacted the HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/" Royal

Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth). But I expressed the view that the relevant date "maybe later"HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn56" [57] . Callinan J agreed

55 with the reasoning of both Kirby J and myself.


7/18




While a judge of the High Court of Australia may elect judicial powers because of some HYPERLINK"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/" Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth). The

truth is that this latter Act is irrellevant to the issue of constitutional powers regarding citizenship.

5 Constitutionally,

Mr. SYMON.-

I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament,

then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it shouldnot be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is

10 entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of havingthat taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I amwilling to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared totrust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining theUnion.

15 Therefore, becoming a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia is only achievable by becoming a state citizenfirst.The fact that the Certificate of Australian Citizenship states;QUOTE

Certificate of Australian Citizenship

20GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL

Born on 7 th June 1947

having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions prescribed by the25 Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate

and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.END QUOTE

It must be clear that no kind of application can be made for this and neither can any be granted by the30 Commonwealth of Australia in that it is AUTOMATICALLY obtained upon obtaining State citizenship.

Therefore, what is really occurring was that I applied to my understanding to naturalize and by this dispose of myDutch nationality to become a British national within the meaning of Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and theCommonwealth of Australia purport this to be somehow to be Australian citizenship.

35Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the

Constitution.

Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272 .

40Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia cannot turn naturalization into something else not contemplated by theFramers of the Constitution.

Subsection 51(xix) naturalization powers had nothing to do with political rights, that are included in citizenship, but45 related to alliance to the British Crown.

Australia is a continent, and was so before Federation, at least that is what I perceived was applicable also at thetime of Federation.The Framers of the Constitution made clear that at all official functions the national anthem was to bless the

50 Monarch.

Hansard 22-04-1897Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GLYNN:

55 The foundations of our national edifice are being laid in times of peace; the invisible hand ofProvidence is in the tracing of our plans. Should we not, at the, very inception of our great work, give

some outward recognition of the Divine guidance that we feel? This spirit of reverence for the Unseen

pervades all the relations of our civil life. It is felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language


8/18




of our Statutes, in the oath that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition

of the Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through which on every

public occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our domestic observances, in the

offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in the time-honored motto of the nation.

5Hansard 8-03-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Thus we are forced-after, forsooth, the 1891 Convention and the three sessions of this Convention-back to theelementary consideration of whether this body is to be analogous to the position of the House of Lords in

10 [start page 2036] England, and we have the English Constitution brought in, and an appeal made through ourpatriotism, and "God save the Queen," and all that sort of thing. That is not the question which we have todeal with. We have to do our best to arrange a Constitution which has very little analogy to the EnglishConstitution, but, at the same time, from the circumstances of our birth and the love of country, we have toadhere to the English Constitution as nearly as is consistent with the altered condition of things.

15Whatever the argument might be of those seeking to advocate that the Commonwealth of Australia is anindependent nation, the truth is that constitutionally it never is and never can be.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

20 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I beg to move-

I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever to the word"Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I have no objection to that whereit is confined to the expression of the political Union. In the preamble honorable members will find that whatwe desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the

25 Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution herebyestablished." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the

political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to thename of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the

preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the30 Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to

be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and

I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. The first clause says-This Act maybe citedas the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act." I assent to all that. Then comes clause 3, which says it

shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, to35 declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the

passing of this Act, the people of the colonies enumerated shall be united in a Federal Constitution under thename of-I say it ought to be "of Australia." Why do we want to put in "the Commonwealth of Australia"? Weare there by our Constitution giving the name to our country, and, to the united people who are to beestablished as a nation under the Constitution. By what name, I would like to ask honorable members, will

40 they call this Federal Union? It will be called by the name Australia, whether we like it or not.Again;

That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a

dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not

propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.

45The Commonwealth of Australia is a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION by the Colonies (now States) As like the

EUROPEAN UNION is in Europe.No one would seek to argue that the European Union is a country. Yet, it doesnt matter if one is a British national, aDutch national, Frenchman, German or else they are all citizens of the European Union

50 Citizenship is not limited to the nationality of the person but by the territory in which the person resides that formspart of the European Union.No one could dream of the European Union to become some Monarchy, Republic or Dominion. Likewise, theCommonwealth of Australia likewise cannot be a Monarchy, Republic or Dominion. It is a federation out of theStates.

55 The States themselves can perhaps become independent in time and then assume to become a Republic or Monarchybut not while they remain dominions. If the states cannot become Monarchies or Republics in the current climatethen their Agent, so to say, the Commonwealth of Australia hardly can take on some different constitutional

position.


9/18




The term citizenship was not at all associated with nationality but rather covered any subject of the Queenresiding within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent Australia.

The terms Australian citizen, Australian citizens , Australian citizenship, Commonwealth citizens, federal5 citizen, citizen of the Commonwealth were used ongoing by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below,

and as such were terms not as to nationality but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (nowStates) and the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that theterm Australian citizenship cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be an Australiannationality merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a declaration as the proper powers to

10 legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section 128 of the Constitution.

13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens25-03-1897 Re; Australian citizens

15 Re; dual citizenship26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen

Re; dual citizenship20 31-03-1891 Re; Australian citizen

Re; citizen of the CommonwealthRe; dual citizenship

12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth14-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

25 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship15-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

Re; Commonwealth citizenshipRe; dual citizenship

17-09-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth30 24-01-1898 Re; Australian citizen

28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenshipRe; Commonwealth citizens

04-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship

35 Re; Commonwealth citizenship

Re; citizen of the CommonwealthRe; federal citizenship

Re; dual citizenship15-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

40 23-02-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth24-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth01-03-1898 Re; Australian citizens

Re; citizen of the Commonwealth02-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

45 Re; federal citizenshipRe; Commonwealth citizenship

Re; dual citizenship03-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth

Re; federal citizenship50 Re; Commonwealth citizenship

04-03-1898 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship

Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

55 Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a case which is extremelyunlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from acquiring property in the legislating colony, oronly allow him to acquire it under adverse conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state isleft in that state. The state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or anything else-and Iam not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration of its own lands, or of

60 anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the administration of its affairs. I would much prefer,


10/18




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 questionas 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 conditions-

5 would be given the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of the Commonwealth. Those words, it seems tome, should come out, and we should confine the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights ofcitizenship to the citizens of the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendmentsuggested by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.

And

10 Mr. KINGSTON.-I say we are creating a Commonwealth in which I hope there will be a federalcitizenship, and I shall be glad indeed to see the powers of the Federal Parliament enlarged to enable that

body to legislate, not only with reference to naturalization and aliens, but also with reference to the rights andprivileges offederal citizenship.

An HONORABLE: MEMBER.-What is the meaning of citizenship?

15 Mr. KINGSTON.-It is not defined here, but it ought to be defined in the Constitution, or else we ought togive power to the Federal Parliament to define it. And, after having defined what shall constitute Australiancitizenship for the purposes of the Commonwealth, we ought to carefully prevent any state legislating in

such a way as to deprive any citizen of the Commonwealth of any privileges which citizenship of theCommonwealth confers within its borders. I have the honour to come from a state which has already adopted20 a system of absentee taxation, but I do not hesitate to say, speaking on my own individual account, that I

think the continuance of that system, applied to citizens of the Commonwealth resident in other states of theCommonwealth, would be a great mistake and an unfederal act.

Mr. HIGGINS.-If a rich South Australian went to live in Tasmania, on account of the cool climate, wouldyou allow the imposition of the absentee tax on him?

25 Mr. KINGSTON.-I do not think it ought to be imposed on him.

And

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-How would that affect a tax on absentees?

Mr. WISE.-It would give full power to impose a tax on absentees outside the Commonwealth, but notwithin it. There [start page 675] should be no absentees within the Commonwealth after federation. I do not

30 see, how, after federation, a man can be regarded as an absentee at Sydney when he lives in Melbourne. If weare to have federation, the idea that when a man moves from one part of the Commonwealth into another he

becomes an absentee, or ceases to be an Australian, is one that must vanish, and we ought, as far as ourConstitution will permit us, to do everything to make it vanish quickly. It is a survival of the old idea thatthere is a distinctive citizenship in a Victorian, and a distinctive citizenship in a New South Wales man. That

35 is the idea which I am endeavouring to destroy by supporting the amendment of Tasmania, that Australiancitizenship, and that alone, shall be recognised in every part of the Federation. The way to secure that is to

provide in the clearest terms, as Tasmania suggests, that no local Parliament can have any authority to, in any

way, abridge the citizenship of an Australian.

Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I really think that the constant attempts which are being made to interfere40 with the rights of the states, in matters which are left to them expressly, is becoming quite alarming. There

are a number of general words already in this Constitution which, I fear, may be used so as to almost destroythe independent powers of legislation of the states, with reference to every conceivable subject that they haveleft to them.

45 For the above, and what already has been placed before on file in previous proceedings the issue therefore is that ifthe Commonwealth of Australia holds that Australian citizenship purports some kind of Australian nationalitythen this is ULTRA VIRES, as no such constitutional powers were granted by the Imperial parliament and neither

by any Section 128 referendum. Section 51(xix) only provides for naturalization ofaliens to be made Britishnationals.


11/18




The problem with this is that if the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 purports to be Australian nationality then thislikewise is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.If therefore the Constitution of the State of Victoria relies upon the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 as to provideState franchise then this is also ULTRA VIRES, as an the State cannot rely upon an unconstitutional enactment.

5If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is purporting to grant citizenship as to refer to political rights then that toowould be unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES.

If the AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP referred to in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 in fact is and

10 remains to mean that a person is naturalized to be a British national, then in any case it is ULTRA VIRES where itpurports to define/declare the nationality of any person born within the States, as any subject born within the realmof the King (Queen) is automatically a national and so a subject of the British Crown. Any reliance by the StateConstitution to allow for franchise based upon a unconstitutional provision in that regard also remains ULTRAVIRES.

15It ought to be kept in mind that in 1948 most likely no one really has a slightest understanding and perception as towhat was constitutionally appropriate. Whatever was enacted at the time by ill conceived perceptions cannot make itlawful. It remains ULTRA VIRES for so far it is beyond constitutional powers or exceeding constitutional powers.

20 As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could put a disability to any

alien upon naturalization to obtain citizenship, this by legislation any race is subjected to provided withinsubsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution or otherwise being limited, such as that a person naturalized cannot obtain

citizenship within, say, 2 years of naturalization, then aCertificate of Australian Citizenship

cannot be granted to

anyone. For example, since the 1967 referendum that provides for Aboriginals to be dealt with under the race25 provisions of Section 51(xxvi) constitutionally not a single Aboriginal can have citizenship involving franchise as

they are constitutionally barred once the Commonwealth of Australia enacted legislation within its raceconstitutional powers.Likewise, while the race powers did not give the Commonwealth of Australia any powers to legislate against the

general community the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia nevertheless did so and so with the Racial30 Discrimination Act, by this in effect it also robbed each and every citizen of their right to have franchise and indeed

be a Member of Parliament!

Because Australian citizenship, albeit wrongly, has been the core requirement of numerous positions, such as tobe a judicial officer, to be a police officer, to be a Member of Parliament, etc, it is having horrific consequences that

35 follows from what currently is so wrongly applied.

Still, the rule of law, so constitutional law, must be applied in a proper manner, and not some Banana Republic kindof system.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also relies upon the unconstitutional declaration/ definition ofAustralian40 citizenship as to provide forfranchise where in fact franchise in the Commonwealth of Australia is obtained

only by having obtained State franchise through State citizenship.What is missing is the States legislation to provide for State citizenship and by this forfranchise!

Moller v The Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 (10 March 1999)45

The concept of allegiance was considered by Ormiston, J. (as he then was) in Nicholls v. Board ofExaminers for Barristers and Solicitors [1986] V.R. 719. At p.728 his Honour said:

"Allegiance is a concept which is at the same time both obvious and subtle. Its precise nature has variedover the centuries in ways which it is unnecessary to discuss here. For those reasons it is undesirable to

50 say more about the duty of allegiance than is necessary for the decision in this case. It should beobserved, however, that it is not now an obligation peculiar to monarchical systems of government,whatever may have been its basis in Stuart times: cf. the Case of the Postnati:: Calvin's Case (1608) 7Co. Rep. 1a; 2 State Trials 559; 73 E.R. 761 and Re the Stepney Election Petition (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 54.Secondly, the present case does not concern the oath of allegiance to be given by a subject, national or

55 citizen. Even when an alien had virtually no rights, the correlative right of protection by the sovereignwas sufficient to justify a duty of allegiance on the part of aliens, at least aliens from friendly countries,who lived within the realm. Since the disabilities of aliens have been largely abolished, except as to theright of entry into the country, their duty of allegiance, when they live within this country, cannot bedisputed. On the other hand, I have found no authority, at least since the Middle Ages, which suggests


12/18


13/18




It is, therefore, not surprising that the Court, in exercising its role as the ultimate controller of theprofession, imposes as one of the prerequisites for admission to practise a promise of allegiance and doesnot lightly entertain applications to exempt persons from that obligation. Where, as here, exemption was

5 sought on the grounds of a strongly held commitment to a republican model of government and a fear ofcompromising conscience and principles if required to take an oath of allegiance, it is equally, in my view,not surprising that His Honour exercised his discretion against exemption.

Again;He submitted that it was unfair to use the exemptive power under HYPERLINK

10 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" the Act to excuse those who do not wantto make any commitment of allegiance to Australia at all and to deny it in respect of one who has alreadymade the solemn pledge of that allegiance when he formally undertook Australian citizenship.

What was misconceived was that the oath of alliance is not as to citizenship but to naturalization in regard of15 Subsection 51(xix) op the Constitution The oath of alliance to be admitted to the Bar to practice in the State of

Victoria is a different kind of alliance as it related to uphold the specific laws of the State of Victoria. The oath ofalliance in the State of NSW, for example, is to uphold the laws of that State when seeking admission to the Barthere.There can be no oath of alliance in regard ofAustralian citizenship as referred to by the Framers of the

20 Constitution as it is obtained AUTOMATICALLY when obtaining state citizenship.

As I perceived it at the time of what I considered to be naturalization I made an oath of alliance to become asubject of the British Monarch and indeed the Dutch Government advised me that by taking up this naturalization Ino longer have the Dutch nationality. This being so then clearly the oath of alliance was in regard of the

25 naturalization powers provided for within Subsection 51(xix) to naturalize aliens to become British nationals, andas such nothing to do with citizenship as to being to include franchise.

It is not relevant if the intentions of the Commonwealth of Australia is to include franchise as it simply isunconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.

30Many aliens who arrived as children in the Commonwealth of Australia with their parents, who subsequentlynaturalized, found that years later they never were actually naturalized even so they were voting in elections. Indeed,the Australian Electoral Commission is on record that people were found not to be naturalized and so not entitled to

vote even so they had filled out a card to be an Australian citizen and so entitled to vote.35

What has occurred that often children understood, as their parents did, that they were naturalized at the time theirparents were but this was somehow omitted from the documentation to show so. My own 45 year old stepdaughterdiscovered this only a few years ago! By this, while she considers herself to be an State citizen, and so an Australiancitizen and also having been naturalized, the Commonwealth of Australia however never accept any of this. The

40 Pochicase is another clear example, where Mr. Pochiwas deported where the High Court of Australia in 1982 heldhe was not an Australian citizens despite that he had lived for most of this life and had children here. The HighCourt of Australia confusing Australian citizenship with nationality.

To many Australian citizenship remains to be relating to having political rights and nothing to do with nationality,45 and yet the Commonwealth of Australia keep advertising about Australian citizenship but in real terms may and

does in fact refer to some concocted Australian nationality even so no constitutional powers exist in that regard.

Therefore, the fact that I had filled in enrolments cards to vote in Federal elections is of no meaning where this wasdone upon misconceptions created by the Commonwealth of Australia itself to refer to Australian citizenship but

50 which in fact was not at all referring to franchise of citizenship as such but to some purported Australiannationality.

As a self educated constitutionalist, I view that the Racial Discrimination Actin effect (even so unconstitutionalin its conception) in fact robs every person of theircitizenship and so theirfranchise as the Framers made clear

55 that any legislation within the race provisions disqualified every such person of theircitizenship and so theirfranchise. Hence, there can be no one who is eligible to vote or to be a Member of Parliament.In any event, where I claim that constitutionally I am a British national if the naturalization was effected within theconstitutional provisions of subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and the High Court of Australia already madeclear in Sue v Hillthat British nationals are foreigners (aliens) and so kicked out Heather Hill, then clearly I


14/18




cannot be deemed to be entitled to vote in any event. Australians are Australians by the fact that they are residingwithin the Commonwealth of Australia, not because they are naturalised or born in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Those born in the United Kingdom, but residing then in the colonies (now States) and participating in the

5 Constitution Conventions to create a federation nevertheless considered themselves to be Australians, besidesbeing British nationals.

Lord Denning M.R. in Reg. v.Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Soblen (1963) 2 QB 243, at p 299, stated

10 4. The law of this country is very jealous of any infringement of personalliberty (Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, at p 527) and a statute orstatutory instrument which purports to impair a right to personal liberty isinterpreted, if possible, so as to respect that right: R. v. Cannon Row Police

15 Station (Inspector) (1922) 91 LJKB 98, at p 106.

CHU KHENG LIM AND OTHERS v. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER (1992) 176 CLR 1 F.C. 92/051

14. Aliens, not being members of the community that constitutes the body20 politic of Australia, have no right to enter or remain in Australia unless

such right is expressly granted. Laws regulating their entry to and providingfor their departure from Australia (including deportation, if necessary) are

directly connected with their alien status. And laws specifying theconditions on and subject to which they may enter and remain in Australia are

25 also connected with their status as aliens to the extent that they are capableof being seen as appropriate or adapted to regulating entry or facilitatingdeparture if and when departure is required((107)

This indicates that permission to be and remain in Australia is not depending on being a natural or born national, but30 rather if one has become a member of the body politic of Australia. This body politic is in fact being an Australian

citizen.The right of exercising any rights as an Australian citizen is enshrined in the Constitution


35

Mr. DEAKIN.-

In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten ,

40 It falls under personal liberties to exercise ones right to vote or not to vote.

LEGAL FICTION

Sue v HillAuthority;

45GRADUAL INDEPENDENCE, that is what the High Court of Australia argued in the Sue v Hillcase to oust her,despite being a subject of the British Crown from the Senate. Quit frankly, at that time, I had myself argued that in1919 by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles the Commonwealth of Australia had become in effect an

INDEPENDENT nation and by this the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was no more50 valid then any other colonial legislation.

The Family Court of Australia even published this in its judgment!

But, while I had this great kind of argument as to why the Commonwealth of Australia was an INDEPENDENTnation, I later discovered that constitutionally this could not be so. If, the Commonwealth of Australia somehow

55 became an INDEPENDENT nation then at some point of time legislation enacted in the commonwealth of Australiaand in any of the states would be defective as they would no longer be what the respective Constitutions required.The commonwealth of Australia exist as a part POLITICAL UNION between the States, and it would be sheerimpossible for the Commonwealth of Australia to somehow then dictate the States if it remained to be colonialentities or become independent. No such constitutional powers were ever provided for in the Commonwealth of

60 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the Framers of the Constitution clearly opposed such possibility without


15/18




a Section 128 referendum! Indeed, they made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could not , so to say, throwoff the Imperial connection under this Constitution.The signing of the Treaty of Versailles could not have somehow invoked the Commonwealth of Australia to

become INDEPENDENT and neither can there be something like a gradual becoming of INDEPENDENT as to5 even contemplate this on constitutional grounds would mean that having a Constitution is of no avail as no one will

know when things are purportedly changed over time as it be the judges who may declare what they view byhindsight.The POLITICAL UNION between the Colonies (now States) to form a political alliance, albeit partly, was acontract that was binding among them. However, can we accept that somehow a contracts between them on partial

10 political issues somehow then can change everything?Would this mean that if tenants of a building are making an alliance then somehow they can become the owners ofthe building merely because they claim that over time they became the owners by what they did?

As the Framers of the constitution made clear, external affairs gave the Commonwealth of Australia powers to15 make treaties but only for so far it already was within its constitutional powers. It could not use it to acquire

somehow powers it didnt possess in the first place. As such, while the Commonwealth of Australia, for example,may make a treaty with any other foreign nation that their citizens drivers licences will be accepted as valid withoutneeding a international driving licence, the truth of the matter is that there is no constitutional powers for theCommonwealth of Australia to do so in the first place, as only the States have the legislative powers in that regard.

20 If it were to be allowed for the Commonwealth of Australia to make any kind of treaty in regard of matters theCommonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) specifically withheld any legislative powers for, then thewhole notion of having a Constitution that can only be amended by way of Section 128 referendum no longer is

applicable as the Commonwealth of Australia can simply circumvent any constitutional limitation by makingtreaties in regard of matters it didnt have constitutional powers for.

25 The Constitution is constant and can only be amended by Section 128 referendum. CoAG (Council of AustralianGovernments) is an unconstitutional entity and cannot therefore somehow circumvent Section 128 provisions either.

When I contested the legal validity of the application of the Cross Vesting Act, in 1994, I was, so to say, thrown outby the Courts, yet in 1999 the High Court of Australia in the Wakim case then formally declared the purported Cross

30 vesting act to be unconstitutional.

In my 28 October 2002 to Mr Justice Michael Kirby I contested the validity of the Australian Act, and on 17 June2003 His Honour in the MIMA case then made clear the Australian Acthad no legal enforcement against theConstitution.

35

It doesnt matter if the States therefore somehow agreed to the enacting of the

Australian Act

as it was beyond the

powers of Subsection 51(xxxvii) to allow for this in that this subsection only allows for matters to be referred that isin dispute between two or more States but not all States. The Australian Act could not be held to have been amatter of dispute between two or more States such as the Murray River can be!

40 There never was any constitutional powers given to the High Court of Australia to declare the Commonwealth ofAustralia to be some alleged INDEPENDENT nation as its constitutional powers are bounded by the limits of theConstitution.Are we next going to have that essentially we have become part of the Republic of Indonesia because we now areenacting legislation dealing with refugees to please the Indonesian Government?

45As Author of various books about certain constitutional issues under the INSPECTOR-RIKATI label I haveextensively canvassed those constitutional issues, and rely upon my past published books also in support of thisargument that Australians are Australians because they are living in the Continent of Australia and that they are

British nationals and this is EMBEDDED in the Constitution to remain so. No one can point out that there is a50 country named Australia where it makes laws regarding, say, driving licences, council rates, etc for the whole of the

nation. The Commonwealth of Australia doesnt even have legislative powers over local governments in the States.

It is simply a LEGAL FICTION that the Commonwealth of Australia is a INDEPENDENT nation, and so also thatsomehow the Commonwealth of Australia has a Queen of Australia.

55Would it not encompass that judicial officers who made an oath of alliance to the British Monarch and sinceremained judges of the Courts but never did make a new alliance to the pretended Queen of Australia then aredisqualified from sitting as judicial officers at the bench of the Queens Courts?

60 Surely, no one could accept that lawyers who swore an oath of alliance to the British Monarch somehow couldcontinue to be members of the Bar and be judicial officers when we somehow now hold that the British Monarch


16/18




and its subjects are all foreigners and ousted from not only voting but also from being Members of Parliament, asHeather Hill was?

When I applied to naturalize it was in the perception that the I would become a British national with the British5 Crown as head of the Empire. It is not, in my view, for the High Court of Australia then to somehow imply later

with the Sue v Hillcase that somehow I never gained any alliance to the British Crown, neither became a subject ofthe British crown but somehow became a subject to a non existing Queen of Australia of a fictional country.

In my 30 September 2003 published book titled;

10INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

15 I canvassed the issue then about the case of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge as to what I considered to be theirwrongful conviction. I pointed out that it was immaterial what was stated on the flip side of the membership card aswhat was relevant was that the membership Card showed that the person was a Member of Pauline Hanson Onenation and as such were full members for purpose of legislation. On 8 October 2003 the Queensland Attorney-General and Minister of Justice then wrote to me that in fact legal issues I had raised had not been canvassed by any

20 of the parties in any of the proceedings. Yet, subsequently the Court of Appeal about word for word used the verylegal argument I had used in my book as to overturn the convictions.

What was clear is that those who joined Pauline Hanson One Nation for all purposes wereMembers

regardless of

what may have been stated otherwise to try to interfere with this on the flip side of the membership card.25

Likewise, I naturalized to become an British national referred to as Australian because of being resident in theCommonwealth of Australia, and do not accept that somehow years later the High Court of Australia, and notably

beyond its constitutional powers (as it did with the MABO case, as the colonies joining Federation did not acceptthere was a native title issue in Australian colonies existing) can then interfere with my constitutional rights being a

30 British national. It is not relevant for this if the British Parliament did or did not legislate as to Australians being

foreigners as it would be ULTRA VIRES, as it has no legislative powers to deny Australians their Britishnationality that is embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).


35

Mr. DEAKIN.-

In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten ,END QUOTE Part 2 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

40QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURTIn any event, back to compulsory voting, an artificial voting by making it compulsory, doesn t enhance elections atall.

45 And, if we have Senator Ray making clear, as I understood it, that voting isnt compulsory, then why is theCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918 not showing the same?

I do wish to point out;

50 (14) Without limiting the circumstances that may constitute a valid and sufficient reason for not voting,the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes avalid and sufficient reason for the failure of the elector to vote.

My religion is not to do something I view is unlawful, and so I didn t vote, as I did set out previously already.55

Muldowney v State of South Australia & Anor C22/1993 (3 October 1995)

BRENNAN CJ: But it does not really do that, does it? It prohibits the advocating of that which is notproscribed and what is not proscribed is unenforceable in any event. This is a secret ballot process, the Actmakes that perfectly clear. If you found an unfilled ballot paper you would not or ought not to know

60 who put it in anyhow. So 85(2) is only giving legislative acknowledgment to what is, in fact, the truth.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/


17/18




Section 126 on the other hand is designed to prevent the development of a practice which might subvert therepresentative process.

And

5 The other matter it would be worth drawing to the Court's attention about the Electoral Actis section 85(2),the provision that permits the unmarked ballot paper. The effect of that section is, in our submission, notaltogether clear in this regard. Ifthe Act did not contain that provision, the law as we understand it

would be that an elector who put an unmarked ballot paper in the ballot box would not have

committed an offence.

10 TOOHEY J: When you say "that provision", Mr Solicitor, are you speaking ofsection 85(2)?

MR SELWAY: Yes, your Honour. Our understanding of the cases dealing with this and like provisions -sorry, section 85 leaving out subsection (2) if it was not there - is that those provisions do not create anoffence of either making an informal vote or not voting at all so long as one goes through the process ofattending at the polling station, having your name crossed off, picking your ballot paper up and putting the

15 ballot paper in the ballot box. If I could just refer the Court to Faderson v Bridger(1971) 126 CLR 271;the case ofLubecke v Little (1970) VR 807, at 811 - and this case is not on anyone's list, I do not think;

and a case on the South Australian Electoral Actbefore the 1985 Act, Douglas v Ninnes (1976) 14 SASR

377, at 379. The effect of that proposition is that it is not an offence, as it were, even apart from section

85(2), to leave the ballot paper unmarked.

20 END QUOTE Part 2 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

QUOTE Part 2 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURTIn the Shaw case the high Court of Australia stated;

25 Jason Shaw, the applicant, migrated to Australia with his parents in 1974. He was then two years of age and acitizen of the United Kingdom. Along with his parents, he was granted a permanent entry permit. Under reg 4of the Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Cth), after 1 September 1994 the permanententry permit held by the applicant continued in effect as a transitional (permanent) visa that permitted theapplicant to remain in Australia indefinitely. He has never left Australia since arriving in 1974. However, he

30 has never become an Australian citizen.

END QUOTE Part 2 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

The following quotatations also were before the court, as I opposed the application ofAustralian citizenship as som,e kind of nationality!

35

In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p725 of ER)):QUOTE

40 (T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-bornsubjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.

END QUOTE.QUOTE

45 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alikesubjects of the British Crown.

Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and noblerthan that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present

50 when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the positionwe occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal

citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s126.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/126clr271.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s126.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/126clr271.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea1985103/s85.html


18/18



Htt // h l hl k Bl Htt // ib /I t Rik ti

interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the

Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a

Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I see therefore nothing unconstitutional,nothing contrary to our instincts as British subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to

5 enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raisedin various quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the effect thatwe ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have considered this matter very carefully,and it has seemed to me that it would be most difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame asatisfactory definition. There is in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition

10 of citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other things, it saysthat a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized citizen within the jurisdiction

of the United States, and it has been found that that excludes the children of citizens born outside the

limits of this jurisdiction. That shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed

a proposed clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me

15 surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned members (Mr. Wise,Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any definition, and would be able to

perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable to implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in

the Constitution, because it would be better to leave the question more elastic, more open to

consideration, and more yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.

20 Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the Commonwealthwill seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of the Commonwealth which will

enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen ofthe Commonwealth who is not already a citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtueof it he is entitled to the citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow

25 different people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they becomenaturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they come here.

Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of the states, and it isby virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens of the Commonwealth. Are you

30 going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens of the Commonwealth?

Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.

Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the Commonwealth?

END QUOTEAgain:

35 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they come here.

END QUOTE

40 Well enough for now. And, did you yet deal with the issue of the INTER-STATECOMMISSION?

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL45

(Our name is our motto!)