130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re Various Issues-Republic by Stealth!

7/29/2019 130920-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re Various Issues-Republic by Stealth!

1/35

p1 20-9-2013

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0

PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also

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

Mr Tony Abbott Prime Minister 20-9-2013

[email protected]

Cc: Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP [email protected]

Ref: 130919-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re various issues-Republic by stealth!

10

Tony,

as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I seek to clarify some matters as there seems to be a

considerable misconception by many, including so called monarchist and republican, as well

as the judiciary in general (including the High Court of Australia) as to the true meaning and

15 application of the constitution, as some matters I will set out in a limited format below..

As I understand it you are a monarchist and Malcolm Turnbull is a republican, but both

have law degrees..

20 I am just an ordinary bloke who didnt have English as his native language, nor had any formal

education in the English language, and so uses my self proclaimed crummy English. I am

neither a Rhodes scholar, but seems to understand and comprehend constitutional limitations

better then those who are.

25 KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221

Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.

QUOTE Barwick C.J.(1)

30 10. There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction which

are beyond controversy. The words ofthe Constitution are to be read in thatnatural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by the

Imperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of any

Australian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided by s.

35 128 ofthe Constitution. The connotation of words employed in the Constitutiondoes not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstances

extend the denotation or reach of those words. These propositions are fullydocumented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task of

finally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation40 of the language of the Constitution. (at p229)

END QUOTE

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

45 The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every clause, ornearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of

those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct

negative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusionas they may think fit if I ruled this out of order.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s128.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s128.htmlhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/the%20Committee%20Secretary,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/the%20Committee%20Secretary,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://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/InspectorRikatimailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s128.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s128.htmlhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/the%20Committee%20Secretary,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/the%20Committee%20Secretary,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/


2/35

p2 20-9-2013





END QUOTE


QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

5 When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,

that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,

trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions

clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will

harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that

10 too much care has not been exercised.END QUOTE.


QUOTE

15 Mr. OCONNOR(New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correctin the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should

make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other

Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used

the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a20 great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is

for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United

States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.

Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we shouldhave no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to

25 come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to

it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a

direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see thatthere is some reason forevery clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.

END QUOTE30 .


QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to

Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass

35 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution , and, in fact,

to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the FederalParliament."

END QUOTE

40 Let me quote of my 16 September 2013 correspondence to you;

QUOTE 16--9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Tony, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, my primary concern is what the true meaning and

application of the constitution is about.

For example the Framers of the Constitution stated:45 HANSARD 22-9-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)

QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:

I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the

evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as

50 they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of thecommonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any

powers beyond the ambit of those specified.

The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the

Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might

55 not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,

order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be

contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the

commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the

parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
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


3/35

p3 20-9-2013





legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that issufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good

government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full

consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had5 better not be left out of the bill altogether.

The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting

Committee.

Amendment negatived.

END QUOTE10 END QUOTE 16--9-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942

QUOTE

Common expressions such as: 'The Courts have declared a statute invalid'," says Chief Justice Latham,

15 "sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of poweris not and never has been a

law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a

decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law.The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it - and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is

invalid ab initio.

20 END QUOTE

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27

(17 June 1999)QUOTE

25 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail

against the Constitution. Mr Gouldis entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as

Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".

That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.

END QUOTE

30 .

DPP v Field[2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)QUOTE

24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of

an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of

35 proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would

promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote thatpurpose or object. Those provisions are well known.

QUOTE.

40 The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to

federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmQUOTE

37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the

45 principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into

which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."END QUOTE

And

QUOTE50 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes

the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be

in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in55 reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from

the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An

unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a

statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no

60 rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies

no acts performed under it. . .
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/vic/consol_act/iola1984322/s35.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iola1984322/http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iola1984322/s35.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iola1984322/http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htmhttp://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm


4/35

p4 20-9-2013





A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede

any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is

superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

5 END QUOTE

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence

Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

QUOTE

10 BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the

vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v.

Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45

Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Opinion filed

15 September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of

California "A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right." People v. Reber,

(1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255

Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right

of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the

20 state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously,

administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons

of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F.No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive,

un-contradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that

25 fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952)If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas

Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller ~*~

END QUOTE

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257:

30 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and

ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not

merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is

as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settlejust as it would be had the statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general

35 principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or

authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act

cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any

existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is

superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to

40 enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a statute which has theretofore been adjudgedunconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal responsibility ....


QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-45 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond

the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and saythat there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the

Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as

any private person would be.

50 END QUOTE

Take for example the issue of compulsory votingI submitted to the court that it was

unconstitutional in which I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth (AEC - Australian

Electoral Commission), on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of Victoria. Despite this it still

55 issued fines against me for failing to vote, and so against hundreds of thousands of others, even

so clearly is is a crime to undermine the benefits of a court judgment.


5/35

p5 20-9-2013





Why then is the Commonwealth not repealing compulsory voting? It is contrary to the legal

principles embedded in the constitution and also in conflict with s106 of the constitution. (As I

did set out extensively in my submissions to the court and the Commonwealth even so having

highly paid lawyers attending didnt challenged anything I submitted to the court, and as such

5 must be deemed to have accepted that my submissions were correct in law. And they were also

subject to a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and none of the Attorney-

Generals sought to challenge my submissions either.).

INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really?10 A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC

15 In part 3 of the submissions in the ADDRESS TO THE COURT I also stated:QUOTE 19 July 29006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=398&invol=333

U.S. Supreme Court

20 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970)

398 U.S. 333

WELSH v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 76.

25 Argued January 20, 1970Decided June 15, 1970

Petitioner was convicted of refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces despite his claim for conscientious

objector status under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. That provision exempts from militaryservice persons who by reason of "religious training and belief" are conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that

30 term being defined in the Act as "belief in a relation to a supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising

from any human relation" but not including "essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely

personal code." In his exemption application petitioner stated that he could not affirm or deny belief in a "SupremeBeing" and struck the words "my religious training and" from the form. He affirmed that he held deep conscientious

scruples against participating in wars where people were killed. The Court of Appeals, while noting that petitioner's

35 "beliefs are held with the strength of more traditional religious convictions," concluded that those beliefs were not

sufficiently "religious" to meet the terms of 6 (j), and affirmed the conviction. Petitioner contends that the Actviolates the First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion and that his conviction should be set aside on

the basis of United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 , which held that the test of religious belief under 6 (j) is whether

it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of

40 those admittedly qualified for the exemption. Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 335-367.404 F.2d 1078, reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR.

JUSTICE MARSHALL, concluded that:

This case is controlled by United States v. Seeger, supra, to which it is factually similar. Under Seeger, 6 (j)

45 is not limited to those whose opposition to war is prompted by orthodox or parochial religious beliefs. Aregistrant's conscientious objection to all war is "religious" within the meaning of 6 (j) if this [398 U.S. 333,

334] opposition stems from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and

wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. In view of the broadscope of the word "religious," a registrant's characterization of his beliefs as "nonreligious" is not a reliable

50 guide to those administering the exemption. Pp. 335-344.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concluded that:

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

being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the

55 words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to

formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is

contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=398&invol=333http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=380&invol=163http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=398&invol=333http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=380&invol=163


6/35

p6 20-9-2013





3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose

conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are

based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those

whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.5 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of

exempting 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

coverage. Pp. 361-367.

10 Again4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of

exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, shouldextend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp.

361-367.

15

http://members.macconnect.com/users/k/knelson/co/co.html

"By Reason of Religious Training and Belief..."

A History of Conscientious Objection and Religion during the Vietnam War

20 By Karl D. NelsonEND QUOTE 19 July2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT

It should be understood this equally applies to non-religious objections to voting!25 Therefore, any official seeking to enforce or penalise a person for not voting, despite of his/her

objection I view commits a criminal offence and so the responsible Minister who permits this

kind of criminal offence to be perpetrated against electors.

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECTION 43.

QUOTE

30 Attempting to pervert justice

(1) Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this Act, to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or

defeat, the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth, shall be guilty of an

offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

35(2) For the purposes of an offence against subsection (1), absolute liability applies to the physical element of

circumstance of the offence that the judicial power is of the Commonwealth.

(3) For the person to be guilty of an offence against subsection (1), the person's conduct must be more than40 merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely

preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact.

(4) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if doing the thing attempted isimpossible.

45 END QUOTE

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond

50 the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say

that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the

Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as

any private person would be.

END QUOTE55

I was asked (During the recent 2013 federal election) if the election was valid, in view that the

Commonwealth of Australia is a foreign registered company, and the courts are likewise

corporated courts beyond the provisions of the constitution. I held that as long as the election

was held within the confines of the constitution, and any legislation enacted within the legislative
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://members.macconnect.com/users/k/knelson/co/co.htmlhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://members.macconnect.com/users/k/knelson/co/co.html


7/35

p7 20-9-2013





powers. This even so the candidates elected may subsequently betray their constituents, and then

engage themselves in a foreign registered corporation called the Commonwealth of Australia.

Since then I discovered, and wrote to you previously, the writs were incorrect as they didnt

provide for the correct number of days as required by law, and this problem was precisely what

5 was extensively and successfully litigated by me regarding the 20012 federal election. Therefore

the writs being invalid there was and could be no valid election held. I have not as yet checked

out other matters regarding the validity or the invalidity of the election, but safe to say I suspect

there likely will be a repeat of the numerous election problems that I exposed in regard of the

2001 federal election.

10 Therefore, no member was or could have been validly elected to the House of Representatives

and neither to the Senate

But, as s64 of the constitution allow the Governor-General to commission any person to form a

government and to appoint subsequently any person, even not holding a seat in the Parliament,

15 for being a advisor (minister of the Crown) to the Governor-General then the election itself

cannot dictate the validity of the appointment for up to 3 months. However, we must consider

also the following:

HANSARD 16-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

20 Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-No, there would be no prohibition in that respect. The offices of

Speaker and Chairman of Committees are not offices of profit under the Crown. They are parliamentary

offices, and Parliament has always retained a power over its own Estimates to the extent that really the

25 Speaker and President of the local Chambers have always exercised a right to submit their own Estimates, and

those Estimates, as a rule, as far as I know in practice in my own colony, are altogether untouched by theGovernment of the day. Now, these are political offices, but not offices of profit under the Crown.

END QUOTE

What basically is applicable is, that a person not when elected but when actually taking up the

30 seat in the Parliament at the return of the writs, then and only from then on can the person be

paid anallowance

, not being a

salary

.On Wednesday 128 September 2013 I happen to read an article about a Victorian Member of

Parliament Geoff Shaw, who was instead of being at his local (Frankston) political office was

actually working at his accountancy office. it seems it was held he was ripping of the public

35 doing so. The truth is he did precisely what the Framers of the Constitution debated to be

applicable. That those who are elected continue to work in their normal daily job and receive an

allowance (not being a salary) towards the travel expenses and loss of income for attending

to the Parliament. essentially people have been by masses brainwashed that a person who

actually acts appropriately in that regard may be deemed to be a thief.40

It is beyond me why on earth you would have waited until Wednesday 18 September 2013 to

seek to have a Ministry sworn in, as constitutionally you all were not entitled to receive any

remuneration since the election was proclaimed by the Governor-General, that is by publishing it

in the Gazette (as there is no legal validity as to announcing it on the steps of Parliament!) and

45 as such you all had to do without an income until the Governor-General validly has sworn in the

Ministry. While you were apparently commissioned to form a government on 8 September 2013,

this is not a constitutional position which entitles you to be paid from Consolidated Revenue

Funds nor it be payable to the Queen, as no constitutional provision exist for this..

50 I state validly, because as we are under a British constitution then they only valid oath is to the

Monarch of the British Crown. Any other oath would be invalid and not a single person failing to

pledge an oath to the British monarch was then validly appointed.


8/35

p8 20-9-2013





An oath in the constitution falls under a schedule and the wording can be varied provided that

the purpose of the oath still is a pledge to the British Crown.

The constitution provides for Minister to be paid as follows:

5 QUOTE

66 Salaries of MinistersThere shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the

Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament

10 otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a

year.END QUOTE

The wording payable to the Queen, as shown below also, relates to the British Crown, and

15 not to some fictitious Queen of Australia. it is not relevant if the Queen may have agreed to a

naming ofQueen of Australia as the Monarch has absolutely no constitutional powers to alter

the true meaning and application of the constitution. Therefore, the meaning is and remains to be

as to the British Crown. Indeed, it would be utter and sheer nonsense to pay directly the

Governor-General and then he pays the Ministers from Consolidated Revenue Funds. The issue

20 is that Ministers of the Crown are precisely that, they are employed by the British Crown, not the

Commonwealth of Australia! Likewise the Governor-General is not employed by the

Commonwealth of Australia and neither can be paid by the Commonwealth directly.QUOTE

3 Salary of Governor-General25 There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated

Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the

Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament

otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.

The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his

30 continuance in office.END QUOTE

QUOTE

4 Provisions relating to Governor-General35 The provisions of this Constitution relating to the

Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for

the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to

administer the Government of the Commonwealth; but no such

person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the

40 Commonwealth in respect of any other office during his

administration of the Government of the Commonwealth.END QUOTE

Therefore, upon termination of services by any Minister or Governor-General then

constitutionally no further payments are due payable to the Queen. And neither can the Queen45 override the constitution to provide somehow a continued payment for retired

Ministers/Governor-General or other assistant Ministers, etc, which were and never could have

been employed by the Commonwealth. it also means that former Members of Parliament are not

entitled to any further payments. Neither can it be claimed that they are entitled to some kind of

payment for not being re-elected when they stood as a candidate, because they simply are not

50 Members of Parliament as such, at least not regarding the House of Representatives.

The Queen may redeploy a Governor-General to be a Governor-General or Prime Minister, etc,

elsewhere in any part of the British Commonwealth, and it would be utter nonsense that such a

Governor-General could obtain pensions whenever leaving an appointment.

.


9/35

p9 20-9-2013





Indeed, any Member of Parliament who was to be employed by the Commonwealth, other then

the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and a Chair of a

committee, would be in breach of s44 of the constitution and by this automatically lose the seat

he/she was elected to.5


QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for

the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the

10 whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federalconstitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of theseveral colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures , and the

royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be

practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the

15 full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodiesthat will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Eachassembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey

again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority

conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of

20 such authority.END QUOTE

Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

25 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:

In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this

constitution.

END QUOTE

30 HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:

We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to

say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough

to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the

35 Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments.Second, that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in

order that the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the

Crown. Now, I am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one

40 legislative and executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE45 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal

Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that theapplication of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not

50 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going tocreate 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 the 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

55 degree.

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 19-4-1897Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:60 Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of

England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we

cannot get behind it.

END QUOTE


10/35

p10 20-9-2013





It is therefore not relevant what the High Court of Australia may have ruled in Sue v Hill

because if it had no constitutional authority to define or otherwise interfere with the British

Crown, then that is the end of it.

Any person seeking to be an advisor to the Governor-General (Minister of the Crown) who

5 represents the British Crown under this British Constitution then must swear an oath to the

British Crown. as to be validly appointed. the Governor-General has neither any constitutional

powers to administer any oath which doesnt comply with the intentions of the Framers of the

Constitution regarding the British Crown!.

10 QUOTE

2 Governor-GeneralA Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her

Majestys representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and

may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queens pleasure,

15 but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the

Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.END QUOTE

The Parliament therefore cannot assign any powers to the Governor-General, nor can interfere

20 with the powers of the Governor-General. While the Governor-General in council generally

will act upon the advice of his/her Ministers the Governor-General is not bound to do so, asultimately it is a prerogative power that is exercised.

Therefore the nonsense of legislation that somehow the Minister can act for and on behalf of the

Governor-General at meetings, if the Governor-General is not available, it precisely this, as the

25 constitution doesnt permit anyone to act on behalf of the Governor-General who is on a paid

salary. Neither can the legislation to declare any proclamation a legislative instrument by

registration is valid, because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear the proclamation is

not valid until published in the Gazette. Hence, unsigned proclamations purportedly recorded as

a legislative instrument are worthless! The Governor-General has no legislative powers what-so-

30 ever! Neither can the Parliament assign any legislative powers to the Governor-General as only

the Queen can provide for prerogative powers.

Therefore, any oath administered by the Governor-General representing the British Crown andno other, must be to recognise the British Crown. Failing this, no valid oath can be deemed to

have been made and no valid appointment can have been deemed to have been made either.35 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of

the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under

it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-

40 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the

Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of

this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions , then by slow

degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the

guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the45 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as

will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of

constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere

of the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE50

No Minister is employed by the People of Australia but by the British Monarch, and in most

countries one would be liable for TREASON to pledge an oath in defiance to what is

constitutionally permissible. It is unbecoming to any person to make an oath in defiance of the

employer, being the British Monarch. Electors elect representatives, not Ministers of the Crown!

55 Those who think that they are getting away with it anyhow may one day discover that they

actually never had the protection of office, because they had failed to make a valid oath, and/or


11/35

p11 20-9-2013





were not even validly elected. Therefore, if you had failed to make an oath to the British Crown,

then I view you couldnt validly be appointed as prime minister, nor anyone else for that having

failed to swear a valid oath becoming Minister of the Crown. As such, as set out below, I view

Mr Malcolm Turnbull acted correctly to make an oath to the Queen irrespective of his private

5 personal views otherwise. And while he is employed as a Minister of the Crown I would expect

he remains from making any adverse comments to the British monarchy.

HANSARD 26-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE10 Mr. HOLDER: We want something which shall have two parts, which shall be democratic in the fact that

it is based on the people's will, and that in it every personal unit of the population shall be recognised and his

individuality preserved, and that, on the other hand, shall be a true Federation, in that each State unit shall

also have its individuality preserved and its independence assured. I do not think we can afford todispense with either of these two things. We cannot afford to dispense with the guarantee of the personal

15 individual rights of every citizen of the Commonwealth, nor, on the other hand, can we afford to dispense

with the individual or separate rights or interests of each of the separate States-if my hon. friend Mr.

O'Connor prefers that term. We cannot neglect to provide for their due recognition. The next principle I shalllay down is this: That in dealing with this federal authority we should confer on it no powers which itcannot exercise more wisely and well and effectively than the States can exercise those powers. I would

20 even go a step further, and lay down as the principle which should govern our conduct: To the States all that

is local and relating to one State, to the Federal authority all that is national and inter-State. I wonder

whether I can secure the absolute adherence, no matter where it may lead us, of a majority of this Conventionto that principle: To the State everything that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal power

everything that is national and of inter-State importance. I pass from these two general principles to a25 discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the question of the appointment of

the representative of the British Crown in the person of the Governor-General. I do not take it that the words

of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the

matter of whether or not we shall elect our own Governor-General, because I take it that the legal bonds

which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire , are chiefly, first the right of veto which

30 the Imperial authorities have over any Acts our local Legislature may pass, and which the Federal Legislature

may pass, and next the right of the Imperial Legislature at any time to pass legislation which may affect us, or

which may revoke any legislation affecting us. These are the great legal bonds which bind us to the BritishEmpire. But above all this, the greater and wider, and, to my mind, much more important [start page 145]

bonds than the legal bonds are those of kinship, of language, and of sympathy that must always bind us to the

35 motherland. The mere appointment by the Crown of the Governor-General is not a real bond. That this is so isrecognised to-day in that we have presiding, now and again, in the position of Acting-Governor of one orother of these colonies, gentlemen who so preside by virtue of their position upon the legal bench. In the

appointment of the Governor we have only one link, and that link is again and again missing when gentlemen,

owing to their legal position, temporarily occupy the office.

40 Mr. SYMON: By vice-regal appointment.

Mr. HOLDER: Yes, of course; the Commission from Her Majesty lies dormant until it is actually called

into existence by the absence of the Governor; but we can at this moment, if the necessity arises, appoint a

new occupant to the Supreme Court Bench, and that would qualify him to fill the office of Acting-Governor ifneed required it. Therefore I think it is clear that to that extent it lessens the argument that the main link that

45 binds us to the mother-country is the appointment of the Governor, and shows that it is an argument which

has not half so much weight as some of the speakers would have us believe. But I take a very strong position

against the election of the Governor-General by the Federation, not because I believe it would mean losing alink which binds us to England, but that we should have a man of such power and authority, derived directly

from the people, that he would certainly clash with the other powers and authorities we propose to set

50 up under this Constitution.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


55 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:

I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of

being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no

desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a

governor-general or anything else.

60 END QUOTE


12/35

p12 20-9-2013





HANSARD 26-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. LYNE:

First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the Federal

Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of this community to take

5 what I may term the first step towards a severance from the mother-country, but the first step wouldbe in the election of the Governor-General instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home

Government. It is but a small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated

Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home Government; and

I should like to know what power that Government would have over any Governor-General elected in

10 the manner desired.END QUOTE

Clearly, the Governor-General representing the British Crown never could be elected nor be

appointed on recommendation by the Australian Parliament, as this may cause a conflict of

15 interest and prevent a Governor-General to be and be seen impartial. Fancy, the 1975 issue to

again eventuate, and the Governor-General commissioning her son-in-law to become prime

minister! there would be a clear implied bias!

Again: instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government.. This

20 relates to 10 Downing Street, London, Home Office! No valid appointment can be made

otherwise, as again the legal principles embedded in the constitution cannot be altered by the

High Court of Australia, the Parliament, the Ministers, the Governor-General and/or the Queenbecause only the People can do so, and within limitations, exercising s128 referendum powers.

25 QUOTE

101 Inter-State CommissionThere shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of

adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary

for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of

30 the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce,

and of all laws made thereunder.END QUOTE

This also brings us to the promises of road funding, etc, during elections. Again, the provisions

35 of the constitution cannot be interfered with. the Framers of the Constitution made clear thatthere shall be *(mandatory) an Inter-State Commission, exercising powers regarding Trade

and Commerce, and such further powers as the Parliament may provide for.

HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

40 QUOTE

Commission obligatory.

END QUOTE

And

HANSARD 25-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

45 QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament.

END QUOTE

When Mr Malcolm Turnbull was so called leader of the opposition, he then was made aware of

50 my request to be appointed Inter-State Commissioner. Subsequently my 2 July 2013 request for

the same was made know to you and him also. Mr Malcolm Turnbull responded that he would

look into the matter. It appears to be extra ordinary that despite it being mandatory to have an

Inter-State Commission both seems to ignore this, as did others! How can you expect people to

respect you when you are so to say not trustworthy upon your own words? The constitution

55 expresses the will of the People, and anyone claiming to govern for all Australians but then

ignore the will of the People can only be deemed to be a fraud and a humbug!

With the carbon tax, it doesnt require any legislation to abolish it, to stop it being applied,

because the Government can simply direct not to have it applied. Governments are not required


13/35

p13 20-9-2013





to enforce laws which goes against the will of the People, and in the recent election they trusted

you to not apply the carbon tax, and now that somehow it will remain until 1 July 2014 is to me

utter and sheer nonsense.

5 I understand that Mr Peter Dutton is Sports Minister, can you set out within which

constitutional context you can have a Sports Minister? Dont argue about external affairs,

because the Framers of the Constitution made clear this related to the powers provided for in the

constitution,. as such not for the Commonwealth to fancy and make up extra legislative powers

that never existed.10 .Hansard 6-4-1897Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am trying to get at the ideas which are underlying the argument of hon.

15 gentlemen. I confess I have not got at them yet. The hon. member, Mr. Deakin, talks about the powers

exercised by the ministers of the Crown in Great Britain. They do not differ in any respect from the

powers exercised by ministers of the Crown in any other country.

Dr. COCKBURN: They are much superior to the powers of ministers here!

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH': Not in the east.

20 Mr. DEAKIN: The powers of our ministers are limited, and theirs are unlimited!

END QUOTE

Whereas the powers of the Parliament and Ministers are limited by the wrritten constitution:

we have, the British Parliament has no such limitations.

25 HANSARD 19-4-1897Constitution Convention

QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:

Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of

England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we

cannot get behind it.

30 END QUOTE

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-the-past/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-the-past

QUOTE

35 Prime Minister Tony Abbott being congratulated by the Governor-General Quentin Bryce after he sworeallegiance to her boss, the Queen, rather than to the people of Australia. (Image via The Australian)

YESTERDAY Wednesday, 18 September 2013 the newly minted Australian Prime Minister Abbott returned to

the past by swearing allegiance to the Queen whereas both Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard, on taking office,

swore allegiance to Australia.

40 Responding to this, National Director of the Australian Republican Movement, David Morris, said in a statement:

Our elected representatives should swear allegiance solely to Australia, rather than loyalty to someone

born to rule over an Empire long gone. We call upon all elected representatives to pledge 100% loyalty to

Australia.

Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard, as mentioned above, swore allegiance to Australia.

45 Prime Minister Abbott today followed his conservative predecessor, Prime Minister Howard, by swearing allegianceto Queen Elizabeth II at the official swearing in of the new Government in Canberra.

The ARMs Morris:

This is looking backwards when Australia should be confidently facing the future . Its no longerappropriate in todays Australia to have divided loyalties. Back in the early twentieth century, Australians

50 were still calledBritish subjects and many still sangGod Save the Queen but no more. Today our

loyalty and our identity is Australian, not colonial.

Australia should always come first for our elected representatives.

Our nation

s values are democratic, as evidenced by the recent elections for both houses of Parliament.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/tony-abbott-is-sworn-in-as-pm-and-vows-to-go-straight-to-work/story-fn9qr68y-1226721779607http://republic.org.au/http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/tony-abbott-is-sworn-in-as-pm-and-vows-to-go-straight-to-work/story-fn9qr68y-1226721779607http://republic.org.au/


14/35

p14 20-9-2013





To have an institution sitting above our Parliament, over which a foreign family is born to rule, is out of

date with our identity as an independent nation.

The Australian Republican Movement advocates a fully and unambiguously independent Australia.

END QUOTE

5 http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-the-past/

?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tony-abbott-swears-australia-back-to-the-

past

QUOTE

Its worth remembering that on 3 December 2007, one week after the election of the new Rudd Federal Labor

10 government, a very republican moment occurred when Kevin Rudd and his ministry swore an oath to

the Commonwealth of Australia, its land and its people.

The significance of this moment was the new Federal ministers swore an Oath under Section 62 of the Australian

Constitution to the people of Australia rather to Queen Elizabeth II, a foreign monarch.

When Kevin Rudd was sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, wearing R.M. Williams boots and a grin as

15 wide as the verandah of his suburban Brisbane Queenslander, he declared:

I, Kevin Michael Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land

and her people, in the office of the Prime Minister, so help me God.

Taking the office of Prime Minister (Executive Councillor) involves swearing an Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation.However, under Section 62 of the Constitution, the form of the oath of office is not prescribed for a minister but by

20 the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Of course, the new Oath was given to the Governor-General on Rudds advice, yet he could not have technically

given that advice until he became an Executive Councillor. No doubt, this advice was relayed earlier, perhaps

through or with the approval of the caretaker, John Howard. In taking this Oath, Rudd acknowledged the republican

ideal that ultimate political authority lays with the land and the people of Australia rather than with the British25 monarch.

The Rudd Oath should not be confused with the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation under Section 42 of the

Constitution required to be made by a Member of Parliament or Senator before taking his or her seat.
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/coaca430/s62.htmlhttp://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitutionhttp://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ruddhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ruddhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ca1934188/s42.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ca1934188/s42.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/coaca430/s62.htmlhttp://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitutionhttp://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ruddhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ruddhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Ruddhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howardhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ca1934188/s42.htmlhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ca1934188/s42.htmlhttp://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Lawson_by_Lionel_Lindsay.jpg


15/35

p15 20-9-2013





Section 42 involves swearing or affirming to

be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and

successors according to law.

This Oath was also used for ministers until the Keating Labor government removed reference to the Sovereign.

5 However, with the election of the Howard Liberal government in 1996, the Oath to the Queen was restored but

without any reference to Her heirs and successors.

The real issue behind the question of the Oath of Allegiance or Affirmation concerns where political authority

ultimately resides. Does it originate from the divine, from God or from the land and the people?

Should Australian political authority continue to be derived from the British monarch and, ultimately, God or

10 should it be acknowledged that popular sovereignty resides in the land and the people of Australia? This is afundamental question for the republican debate.

Republicanism does not acknowledge God as the ultimate source of authority in our society, rather it is the land and

the people.

In 1887, Henry Lawson wrote in his Song of the Republic:

15 Sons of the South, make choice between

the land of the morn and the land of the een,the old dead tree and the young tree green,

the land that belongs to the lord and the Queen,

and the land that belongs to you.

20 The currency lads of the mid-nineteenth century would often use the toast To the land, boys.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appeared to have taken Henry Lawsons advice and chosen the land that belongs to

you over the land that belongs to the lord and Queen.

Prime Minister Gillard followed the lead set by Rudd, however Abbott has chosen to go back to the past where aforeign family born to rule over Australians is considered acceptable and, indeed, the normal state of affairs.

25 It is time all Australians advocated for a fully and unambiguously independent Australia.

END QUOTE

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/coalition-swearing-in-tony-abbott

QUOTE

30 As could have been predicted, blue ties and Bibles were thick on the ground. The new immigration minister,Scott Morrison, promised not to let anyone down. Republican Malcolm Turnbull pledged an oath of

allegiance to the Queen, his sonorous voice carrying the length of the room and out the french doors along

the southern vista.

END QUOTE

35

In my view, Mr Malcolm Turnbull while a well known advocate for the republican movement

nevertheless realised that to be able to be a Minister of the Crown, he must swear an oath rto the

reigning monarch he is to serve..

40 Regretfully many commentators misconceive this, and indeed below quoations also misconstruethat British constitution.

http://australianpolitics.com/

QUOTE

45 The First Abbott Ministry Announced

Sep 16, 2013 Leave a Comment

The Prime Minister-elect, Tony Abbott, has announced the composition of his first ministry.

The new executive has 30 members. The Cabinet has 19 members, the Outer Ministry 11, and there are 12

Parliamentary Secretaries.
http://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SongOfThe-Republic.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lawsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lawsonhttp://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-song-of-the-republic/http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-song-of-the-republic/http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-song-of-the-republic/http://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/16/first-abbott-ministry-announced.htmlhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.schorel-hlavka.comhttp://c/Users/Olga/Documents/Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikatihttp://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SongOfThe-Republic.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lawsonhttp://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-song-of-the-republic/http://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/malcolm-turnbullhttp://australianpolitics.com/2013/09/16/first-abbott-ministry-announced.html


16/35

p16 20-9-2013





Announcing the ministry at a press conference in Canberra, Abbott said: This is the team to provide strong and

stable government. It builds on a strong, cohesive and united opposition.

END QUOTE

5 http://australianpolitics.com/

QUOTE

Most members of the outer ministry are designated Assistant Ministers. Im determined to have clear lines of

authority and a back-to-basics approach,

Abbott said.END QUOTE

10

http://australianpolitics.com/

QUOTE

The First Abbott Ministry

CABINET

15 1. Prime MinisterTony Abbott

2. Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, (Leader of the Nationals)

Warren Truss

3. Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) Julie Bishop

4. Minister for Employment, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Public Service, (Leader of the

20 Government in the Senate) Senator Eric Abetz

5. Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate), (Vice-President

of the Executive Council) Senator George Brandis

6. Treasurer Joe Hockey

7. Minister for Agriculture, (Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Barnaby Joyce

25 8. Minister for Education, (Leader of the House) Christopher Pyne

9. Minister for Indigenous Affairs, (Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Senator Nigel Scullion

10. Minister for Industry Ian Macfarlane

11. Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews

12. Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull

30 13. Minister for Health, Minister for Sport Peter Dutton

14. Minister for Small Business Bruce Billson

15. Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb

16. Minister for Defence Senator David Johnston

17. Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt

35 18. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison

19. Minister for Finance Senator Mathias Cormann

OUTER MINISTRY

1. Assistant Minister for Social Services, (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Senator Mitch

Fifield

40 2. Assistant Minister for Employment, (Deputy Leader of the House) Luke Hartsuyker

3. Assistant Minister for Health, (Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Senator Fiona Nash

4. Minister for Veterans Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC),

Special Minister of State Senator Michael Ronaldson

5. Assistant Minister for Education Sussan Ley

45 6. Minister for Human Services Senator Marise Payne

7. Minister for Justice

Michael Keenan


17/35

p17 20-9-2013





8. Assistant Minister for Defence Stuart Robert

9. Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for

Women Senator Michaelia Cash

10. Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Jamie Briggs

5 11. Assistant TreasurerSenator Arthur Sinodinos AO

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

1. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture Senator Richard Colbeck

2. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry Bob Baldwin

3. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs Senator Brett Mason

10 4. Parliamentary Secretary to the TreasurerSteven Ciobo

5. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells

6. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment Senator Simon Birmingham

7. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education Senator Scott Ryan

8. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence Darren Chester

15 9. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications Paul Fletcher

10. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Josh Frydenberg

11. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime MinisterAlan Tudge

12. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance Michael McCormack

END QUOTE

20

In my view, despite what the High Court of Australia may have ruled otherwise, only Ministers

can be appointed within s64, this as the wording are clear:

QUOTE

64 Ministers of State

25 The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as

the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of theFederal Executive Council, and shall be the Queens Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Ministers to sit in Parliament

30 After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three monthsunless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

END QUOTE

It must therefore be very clear that any person appointed within s64 must be a Minister and not

35 assisting a Minister, and must be a member of the Federal Executive. Therefore I view that each

and every person listed within OUTER MINISTRY and PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES are

not within the provisions of s66:

QUOTE

66 Salaries of Ministers40 There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth,

for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliamentotherwise

provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.

END QUOTE

As such none of them are entitled to receive any financial or other remuneration for their work,

45 as to receive this would place them in clear breach with s44 of the constitution and automatically

their seats are vacant. Again parliamentarian secretaries and assisting Ministers would be in

employment of the Commonwealth, not the British Crown, and hence would be in an office of


18/35

p18 20-9-2013





profit and unable to hold a seat in Parliament. they are either public servants and ineligible to

hold a seat or they are serving without any financial or other remuneration!

As I understand it in 1999 a referendum was held with the following proposed amendment of the

5 constitution:

QUOTE

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the

Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of themembers of the Commonwealth Parliament."

10 END QUOTE

As I understand it this alteration of the constitution was vetoed..

It was a nonsense of a referendum because it would have had no legal affect upon the

15 constitution at all:


QUOTE

Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal

20 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." 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 the name 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 provision25 for the admission of other colonies into the 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.

END QUOTE

30

Therefore, anyone wishing to pursue a republic would effectively have to get the people todispose of the entire The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and have

instead a republic constitution replace it.

The problem would be that many of the guarantees now embedded in the constitution may be no

35 more. Ministers could then so to say rampage through provisions no matter what, as if there is no

tomorrow, and we could end up like a third world country instead.

Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National


40 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:

In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this

constitution.END QUOTE

.

45 WARNING!

Therefore, the constitution provides absolutely no mechanism to turn the Commonwealth

of Australia into some republic. What could eventuate is defracturing of the political

landscape in that some States may opt not to join any Republic federation, but rather

become independent States nations. After all, once you dispose of The Commonwealth of

50 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) a federation is no more!


19/35

p19 20-9-2013





ASSUMING THAT A REPUBLIC CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE CURRENT

FEDERATION ONLY UNDERLINES THE GROSS MISCONCEPTION EXISTING..

An issue is, what is section 128 referendum powers about?5 .

I cannot detect anything within the constitution that allow the alteration of any part of The

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) other then part 9 containing the

constitution. This part 9 is silent as to the Monarchy.

10 Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

QUOTE. Mr. CUTHBERT:

Will hon. members permit me just to make one quotation from a work by a most eminent man, highly skilled

in the art of warfare? Major Clarke, writing on the navy, sets forth the advantages which the colonies reap15 from remaining part of the empire. He summarises them as follows:-

Their commerce, -

That is, the commerce of the colonies.

which is their very life, has received, and will receive the protection of the greatest naval power of the

world.

20 2. The necessary standard of the local defences of their ports is reduced to a minimum.

3. They require to be able to resist a cruiser raid, since a hostile fleet cannot reach them in force, except on

condition of defeating and destroying strong British