20140729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee-Marriage Issues-Etc

1
p1 29-7-2014
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
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, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Committee Secretary Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 29-7-2014
PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3560, Fax: +61 2 6277 5794 5
legcon.sen@aph.gov.au

Ref; 20140729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
marriage issues-etc
Sir, 10
I understand that the senate is considering matter regarding Recognition of Foreign
Marriages Bill 2014.
Before addressing other issues I do like to use the issue of The pre-nuptial agreement that can end
a happy marriage as an example to indicate Australian so called Western society cannot just
willy-nilly accept whatever matrimonial contract may have eventuated in some other country. 15
It would be absurd to Australians to have a sister wedded out to the future brother-in-law just so
as to be able to get married to his sister. While In Yemen this may be acceptable as a tradition
because of the dowry system in place this is not as such applicable in the Commonwealth of
Australia. When I assisted Mr X in his litigation before the Family court of Australia Mr Sadri
had been provided with legal advice by a former Family Court of Australia judge that the dowry 20
system is not applicable in Family Law. Indeed his former lawyer likewise argued this, However
Mr X accepted my suggestion to place it before His honour Bell J and His honour then ruled that
indeed it was relevant and should have been used before the property settlement had been made.
This as technically due to the divorce in Australia Mr X could be held liable in the country he
and his wife became married and this country then could make orders irrespective of the Family 25
Court of Australia property settlement.

We have recent news bulletins that a women separated from her husband (in Australia) then with
a boyfriend travelled to Lebanon and her separated husband notified the Lebanese authorities and
she may now face 6 months imprisonment. As such, the manipulation of Australian legal 30
provisions is something that must always be kept in mind to eventuate.
If therefore Australia were to recognise overseas marriages but this is not done so retrospectively
we would end up with a further utter legal mesh. It may suit lawyers but is totally unfair to the
victims.
It appears to me that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is more interested in seeking to score votes 35
then to be concerned about what is best for the Australian way of life.
.
If she can manipulate to get recognition of so called same sex marriages from overseas then the
next step will likely be that Australia should accept it within its own jurisdiction also.
Recently there was this outrage how a 9 year old boy married a 62 year old woman because he 40
was told by his late grandfather in his dreams that the spirits desired him to do so.
Why should the Commonwealth of Australia recognise so called same sex marriages but not
heterosexual marriages even if it involves a 1 year old girl married to some 60 year old man?
After all ample of paedophiles have been claiming that tit is a sexual orientation that they prefer
a child as a sex partner, being it of the same gender or opposite gender or both. 45

2
p2 29-7-2014
A 1
st

I recall some decades ago when the homosexuals were making clear that what they do as
consenting adults in their bedroom was their business. Well, it has become an avalanche that now
they dictate that decades old children stories about a Mum and a Dad should be re-published
with there being 2 adults, no gender, unless of course it refers to 2 mums or 2 dads. 5

Slowly out children have been indoctrinated that homosexuality is normal.
We had this Television 60Minutes program about how a boy desired to be a female and always
dressed up as a female. In the end he had surgery to b e a female. Some years later the same
person appeared on 60 minutes making clear he feels to be a male and dressed as a male just that 10
some of his attributes were no longer male but female. This is what we are doing to our youth of
today to pretend it is ok to change gender because you naturally always were really of the
opposite gender and well, if you then discover that after all you really were right in your original
gender then the promoters of the sex change are nowhere to be found. If this kind of person can
marry as a male then become a female and still is deemed married to the same person then what 15
kind of nonsense would a marriage become?
.
There was this television documentary about Afghanistan that homosexuality if prohibited with
any male over the age of 18 years but if the other person is under 18 then it is not prohibited.
Hence, many boys are living as sex slaves with a male. Are we to accept their traditions merely 20
because in Afghanistan it is permissible?
.
What if Afghanistan decided to legislate it is lawful for a master to marry his sex slaves of the
same gender, is Australia then to recognise this because it was/is permissible within the laws of a
foreign country. 25
Perhaps Senator Sarah Hanson-Young would do better to move to a country where
homosexuality is the norm and so paedophilias and she can then promote her kind of views, and
perhaps manage to get elected by their parliament, provided they are not using females as being
not worthy. What Senator Hanson-Young seems to overlook is that she is a Senator to represent a
state and I do not see it as a State matter for her to promote homosexual marriages or other type 30
of marriages, even if not intended but never the less can be implied in it.
.
There was recently this news bulletin where a man was caught to have sex with a donkey and so
was forced to marry the ass. Are we then to recognise this kind of marriage also, after all if we do
not we might get the High Court of Australia holding it is sexual discrimination not to allow this 35
kind of bestiality as a marriage.

And why should we then deprive Australians or aliens or a combination of this coming from
Sweden to enjoy their community life where they all are married together and children born
belong to every adult in this community? 40
We may just miss out on extra-terrestrials marriages unless we can get on willing to be foolish
enough to try to couple with an earthling.
But we may still have some mermaids about and who is to argue they are fish, and not humans.
So we might as well get legislation in place that mermaid can also be lawfully married.
There are many lonely people, including the elderly, who have an animal as companion, and 45
upon death do leave all their inheritance to the animal (Ok often their lives are terminated and the
inheritance is defrauded but that is another thing), but surely having an animal such as a cat or a
dog or even a pet fish or bird may be justified as a matrimonial partner? Boy, the divorce rate
would go down very quickly and we would end up with a lot of widows/widowers claiming the
widow/widower pension as soon as their animal domestic partner (husband/wife) expires and no 50
longer is part of the living animal or should I say part of the living in this world.

3
p3 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The funeral parlours will be inundated with request for funerals and that may create a lot of
work. We may even then use the desert as a cemetery, as too many funerals require more space
to bury the death.
It will cut down the courts litigation as to property settlement unless you have a parrot (talking
bird) that can speak to the judge outlining the cruelty of the domestic partner, such as providing 5
old seat of a use-by day expiring time which is to be held domestic cruelty and an attempt of
trying to short cut the parrots time of live.
No doubt there will be an army of lawyers claiming to be specialist in communicating with
animals and represent their interest (well that is after the lawyers sucked most of the monies or
more in legal fees) as after all they had this 2001 federal election advertisement of the (then) 10
Australian democrats with barking dog. Seems no one really got their message as they are no
more. Perhaps, using barking dogs wasnt so intelligent.
Best might be to get married to a bee or wasp, after all they can sting you once but if they do it is
their termination of life. With human partners they can sting you for every cent you have and still
pursue you further. 15

Homosexuality has been part of live for not just decades but for centuries. The same like murder,
rape, theft, looting, etc. Actually the crusaders were known for this. Using black kids for their
sexual desire. The question is because it may have been going on for centuries is this then
meaning we all have to accept that as much as homosexuality is now allegedly the norm then 20
murder, rape, etc is likewise to be accepted?
After all, we have changed our laws to suit homosexuality and so why discriminate against
murderers, paedophiles, etc. where in many countries people so to say are getting away with it?
Come to think of it in the USA they have killed various presidents in office and so why not ac
crept this as part of our system also? And in many other countries they are going on with murders 25
of politicians and so why not allow the same in the Commonwealth of Australia?
Or is it that because we have so to say a Western society And we have a constitution that no
matter what might be permissible in other countries, we cannot just expect but DEMAND that
everyone who desires to enjoy the rights and freedoms embedded as legal principles in our
constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) 30

And here I come into as a CONSTITUTIONALIST.
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE 35
Mr. HOLDER.-I hope that the time which was spent in Adelaide was as pleasant to the visiting
representatives as the time which we have spent under the care and hospitality of the Government of Victoria
has been to us. I think that a word is due to those who have laboured, not merely to make our stay pleasant,
but to assist us in accomplishing that which we have had in view. Speaking for myself, I consider that the
reporting of our debates has been remarkably good. There has hardly been the need of even trifling verbal 40
alterations, and the way in which the speeches have been reported, transcribed, and committed to print has
[start page 2494] left nothing to be desired. I am quite sure that in the permanent record of our proceedings
we have a document entirely worthy of the purpose we have in view.
END QUOTE
. 45
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE 50

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. 55

4
p4 29-7-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to 5
the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that
we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power
over us.
END QUOTE
. 10
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE 15

Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the 20
greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
END QUOTE

Whatever a persons religious views may include, such as traditions and customs, it is and should
remain to be a personal view and not interfere with others. Hence if this religious or purported 25
religious views include homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality or whatever then it is one thing to
have those views but another to exercise them within our so to say western society,.
.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution; 30
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. 35
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.- 40
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE 45
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown
in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 50
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
It is not something separate from the other portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first
volume of his work:-
The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal
discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to 55
cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex,
or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision
shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If
a discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this

5
p5 29-7-2014
A 1
st
as falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly
express it.
END QUOTE

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 5
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and 10
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:- 15
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE 20
Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and
indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the
theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what
we can to provide against it.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I want if I can to recommend the Commonwealth Bill and get it carried. But 25
why should we be faced with this difficulty? You have put in the preamble a religious recital which is not in
the Constitution of the United States of America, but you have not put in the safeguard against religious
intolerance which they have there. I ask honorable members how I shall face that difficulty? There is a grave
suspicion evidenced by what I said that there were 36,000 distinct signatures upon this very point. I do not
think it is too much for me to say that we ought to reassure those persons. They may be wrong. It may be 30
right, as my friend (Mr. Barton) says, that there is no power by implication in the Commonwealth to pass this
law. It may be right as he says, that the Commonwealth ought to have the power. But I only say that it is a
state matter, and it should be left to the states. My honorable friend (Mr. Fraser), with all respect to him,
shows the current ignorance on this matter because he will not understand that the state, if my proposal is
carried, will have the same power as it has now to stop any theatrical performances on Sunday. 35
END QUOTE

What we therefore have to consider is that any form of marriage to be accepted within the
Commonwealth of Australia can only be so if it is within Australian matrimonial provisions. This
backdoor attempt by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young top try to introduce recognition of so to say 40
same sex marriages from overseas must be resisted.

My reading of the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution was never to push upon
Australians certain social standards. Indeed, I view the Family Court of Australia is using
children as slaves precisely never intended as such. 45

QUOTE
The Hon. J.H. HOWE: I will bow to the suggestion of the Chairman.
The Hon. J.H, CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.46]: 1 hope the Committee will strike out this sub 50
clause. It is proposed by the legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, and by the
Council and Assembly of Tasmania, that the sub-clause should be omitted. I can apply no better arguments
than those which the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, used just now with reference to lunacy. The

6
p6 29-7-2014
A 1
st
hon. and learned member said that where a permissive power was given there was pressure brought to bear
for the exercise of that power, and that when it was exercised in one direction pressure was brought to bear
that it might be exercised to the fullest extent. Applying that argument to lunacy, if we had this power
exercised at all, we should find strong arguments used for the taking over of our lunatic asylums. If the power
in this sub-clause were exercised at all, a strong argument would be offered for the state taking over the 5
whole of the benevolent institutions of the various colonies which have to deal with children, and they would
become federal institutions. If you do that you must do what the hon. member, Mr. Howe, proposes. If you
interfere with the children in these institutions you will have to take over the institutions for the infirm and
the old. Now, there is a decided objection in this colony to any federal interference with what the people
conceive to be matters most sacred in the family. We have in this colony a law modelled upon the English 10
law dealing with the custody of children and with parental rights. That question of parental rights is one
which opens up a very large range of questions. We may have all sorts of interference between parents and
their children under a proposal of this character. The state laws, up to the present, have been perfectly
effective to deal with this question, and I think the argument of hon. members against applying federal action
to lunacy apply equally well against federal action in this matter. I shall apply those arguments now in my 15
vote.
[start page 1083]
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[3.48]: This may not be a matter of as great importance as are
some of the other matters in the clause, but I think it is worth consideration. I will put it to my hon. friend that
if the commonwealth are empowered to legislate on the subject of marriage and divorce without having the 20
power to legislate as to the children, the issue of the marriage, this complication may arise-that the judge,
having to pronounce a decree of divorce or of judicial separation, and having also to deal with the question of
the custody of infants, if the commonwealth cannot legislate in regard to both subjects, will administer one
law with respect to the issue relating to divorce, whilst the consequent portion of the decree dealing with the
custody of the children will have to be under a totally different and varying law. 25
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: Why not add the words "in relation to divorce"?
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon. and learned
member suggests, my objection will have disappeared, and there will be a reasonable consistency in the law. I
think the difficulty might be overcome by inserting before the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at
the end of the sub-clause the words "in relation thereto." 30
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that way? If you give the
federal parliament power in relation to marriage generally and divorce generally, then anything that concerns
parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems
to me that if you intrust the federal authority with the power of dealing with marriage and divorce, which
involves everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent on that, also to 35
regulate the custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to
think is in the minds of many who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal
authority to interfere with domestic relations in some mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a
position of slavery. This is a control that seems to me to be consequent upon marriage, and which might
come into operation, perhaps, in relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of divorce, 40
and might depend simply on marriage when the question of divorce does not arise. It will, perhaps, be better
to leave the sub-clause as it is and consider the matter further later on.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Before the hon. and learned gentleman sits down he will, perhaps, deal with what
I forgot, namely, a suggestion from the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, that if this power were granted it would
involve the probability of the commonwealth having to take over the control of the institutions? 45
Mr. SYMON: I did not think that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seriously meant that.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: That argument was successfully used against me in regard to lunatics!
Mr. SYMON: I am sure that the hon. member will be able to successfully dispose of it when it is next used
against him. It would be just as reasonable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, Mr. Howe, and say
that the federal authority are to take control of all institutions for the care of the aged and infirm. I think that 50
hon. members will, on consideration, see that there is no parallel between the cases, and, that as this affects
one part of the relationship of the citizens to the commonwealth, it ought fairly to be under a uniform law and
under federal control.

7
p7 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.53]: I think that the words as they [start page 1084] stand,
"custody and guardianship of infants," are rather too wide. It seems to me that these words, without
any qualification, would apply to destitute children. It would be better for the state authorities to control
the custody and guardianship of infants, because they are immediately on the spot. They have opportunities
of inquiring into the relationship of the children and their parents, and into their condition if they are destitute 5
and neglected. Therefore, I think it is advisable to omit those words, and allow the sub-clause to remain as
proposed to be amended by the leader of the Convention.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[3.54]: I think it would be better to leave the sub-clause
as it is. I can understand that it will be a very good thing for each state to make its own laws with
respect to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children; but supposing that the 10
children went into another state, and were thus taken away from the law of which the previous state
approved, and came under the law of another state which had altogether a different method of dealing
with such matters, and under which the parent was not able to again get the custody of his child, or the
guardian was not able to again get the custody of an infant, what could he do? He could not proceed
under his own law. His own law might be good enough, but the person that he wanted to proceed 15
against would be out of the jurisdiction of his state.
Mr. SYMON: And the order would not have any force!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The order would not have any force. The result would be that, however
good his own law was, he would be unable to enforce it because the law of the other state was of a varying
character. 20
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That is only an evidence clause, and will not have the slightest effect in
this matter.
Mr. SYMON: The hon. and learned gentleman's point is a point of jurisdiction!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: Yes; and it has nothing whatever to do with that. The order would be good 25
enough as a record of the action of the court in the first-named state, but it would not be a record of the court
in the other state; nor would it make the law of the other state subsidiary to the law of the state which
contained that record.
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: Does the hon. and learned member read the word "recognition" as
meaning proof? 30
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It is no more than recognition; it means what it says. The word is plain
enough.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says:
The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process, and
judgments of the courts of the states. 35
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: But it must be in respect of a matter over which the court has jurisdiction.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given
the most sacred of all relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it
follows, as a matter of course, that we must do this. Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the 40
commonwealth. The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a uniform law.
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is
a corollary as far as marriage is concerned.
[start page 1085] 45

8
p8 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the
parent over the child!
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: If the hon. and learned member is willing to hand over the rights,
why not the obligations? 5
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: If the hon. member would like them added I have no objection; but if the
hon. gentleman wants to exclude them, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. So far as I know, the laws
of all the colonies are exactly the same in respect to the matters mentioned here, and there is very little
probability of their being any different, so far as parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants
are concerned. We want to prevent the possibility of any difference, that is all, and to give the federal 10
parliament power to legislate on the subject if they please. I can see difficulties that might arise in the
enforcement of state laws through the child or infant being taken away from the custody of its parent
or guardian, and being out of the jurisdiction of the court of the state in which the parent or guardian
resides, and I think it is necessary to have one uniform law on this matter as well as in regard to
marriage and divorce. 15
The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not about
substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us that as
regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of children so far as divorce is concerned,
power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much further and includes the whole
region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children. 20
The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and
guardianship of children have relation to parental rights.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I 25
think that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole
ground.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:
That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto."
This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce 30
suits. The other matters to which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting Committee.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal
with the service and process of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in
another, it will be just as well for the Drafting Committee to consider the aspect of the case in relation
to deserted wives. If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is carried, I think 35
we might leave the matter to the Drafting Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE
40
A marriage was held by the Framers of the Constitution to be a civil contract.

QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]: 45
Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable
that when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should
be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted.
END QUOTE

9
p9 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Therefore any alleged civil contract of same sex couples by the states/territories would be a
violation to the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers.

While religious marriages may be entered into by those who desire to do so, they are however 5
not in themselves legally binding, ass ultimately it must be the legislative provisions that are to
be complied with, including provisions as to age of the persons entering or purportedly entering
into a civil contract.
.
If therefore the Commonwealth of Australia were to accept that a civil contract in the 10
Commonwealth of Australia can be replaced by religious marriages of other countries then the
inherent problem may be that it by this also might be deemed to accept or imply to accept the
stoning of a alleged unfaithful woman. That a woman claimed to have been raped must produce
at least 4 male witnesses to prove her case, etc.
. 15
In my view, it has been a long and hard battle for women equality, and the mere fact that the
constitution within s41 provided for adult was because the women in South Australia, prior to
federation, had achieved franchise. To now revert or to so to say go down the gutter to accept
religious marriages, being it between same sex persons or otherwise merely as to whatever the
standards may have been in some other country is I view very dangerous. We wouldnt want to 20
have paedophiles going to some foreign country and get married to a child of the same sex and
then return into Australia that as the marriage was solemnised within another jurisdiction then it
should now be accepted within the Commonwealth of Australia. I suspect the High Court of
Australia would be eager to go down this path to accept paedophilia marriages, at least from my
understanding how it has so to say been twisting the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution 25
in other cases.

Whereas the Commonwealth of Australia was given legislative powers as to children in relation
thereto of divorces nevertheless the States purportedly referred legislative powers in 1986 to the
Commonwealth. Just that this never was in my view constitutionally validly achieved. 30

Below I have quoted various of my extensive writing related to this subject of same sex
marriages and also the legal powers by the States to refer legislative power to the
Commonwealth as well as why this has not been validly provided for. Rather than re-writing the
same I hold it appropriate to complement this submission with copies of those correspondences 35
quoted below.

After all, if the Commonwealth never validly obtained the reference of legislative powers than
this may also have a serious implications as to the validity or the lack thereof regarding
Commonwealth of Australia legislation as well as to court judgments. 40

QOTE 26-6-2014 correspondence to Mr Chernov Governor of Victoria
The question also is about the validity of the request for the Australian Act 1986 purportedly
passed by the Victorian Parliament.
45
His Honour French J himself in his THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS
COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES? stated:
THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES?
QUOTE
Section 51(xxxvii) does not expressly confer power upon the States to refer matters or adopt laws made 50
under it. Nor does it specify the mechanism by which State parliaments shall refer matters to the
Parliament of the Commonwealth or adopt laws made under the referral power. The practice has been to
effect such referrals and adoptions by Acts of the State parliaments. The source of the power to refer is
to be found either in the State Constitutions or, by implication, from the Commonwealth
Constitution. This precise question has not fallen for determination. 55

10
p10 29-7-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE
QUOTE 26-6-2014 correspondence to Mr Chernov Governor of Victoria

Clearly the statement by His Honour French J requires a proper investigation as set out in the
writings below for consideration. 5

Also, I have in the writings below referred to religious practices of other nations, as clearly
regardless if it are so called same sex marriages or otherwise, once you open the backdoor to
allow something unchecked then the floodgates will open and we will have a avalanche of
litigation. Those who may hold that mermaid are human rather than animal may then slowly 10
argue that same sex marriage of a female with a mermaid should be permitted. Again, the fact
that a man was forced to marry an ass may underline that we may up with a lot more than
politicians may have bargained for. After all, the Framers of the Constitution would never have
contemplated the ridiculous rulings of the High Court of Australia to hold British nations to be
aliens. After all, they stated: 15
.
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of 20
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.
END QUOTE
. 25
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by 30
being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the
laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 35
QUOTE
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the 40
laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 45
Mr. 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
.
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether 55
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. 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 should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood

11
p11 29-7-2014
A 1
st
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for
joining the Union. 5
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).- 10
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 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 15
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 degree.
END QUOTE 20

Even Dr Quick (Quick & Garran) made clear that there was no constitutional (legislative) power
to alter this constitutional relationship, yet somehow the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill
purports nevertheless to have this judicial powers.
This even so the Framers of the Constitution stated; 25

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of 30
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of 35
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of 40
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, 45
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, 50
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? 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-the 55
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, 60

12
p12 29-7-2014
A 1
st
the 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. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well. 5
END QUOTE

Knowing therefore that the High court of Australia will disregard constitutional constrains and
may likely twist and infringement upon any legislation that may be enacted to as I understand
Mason CJ (High Court of Australia) made known to hand down a judgment to address the issues 10
the court held the Parliament failed to legislate for. By this the High Court of Australia also
proved to violate the separation of powers and to take over the Commonwealth of Australia
legislative powers. Hence, again, we must not ignore this conduct and consider it may do so to
purport legislation enacted to include matters that currently the Parliament never may intend to
include. 15
Divert from the concept of marriage between one man and one woman if not directly then
indirectly and so to say hell will break loose and anything absurd may soon become the norm, at
least if judges again take over the parliaments legislative powers to make up what it view the
parliament failed to provide for and so they simply will in its judgment provide for it. Dont then
be amazed if paedophilia will become law if this same sex marriage issue were to be allowed for. 20

QUOTE 24-12-2013 correspondence Mr Tony Abbott
Mr Tony Abbott MP 24-12-2013
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au, info@pm.gov.au 25

131224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-
Re perceptions, realities and same sex marriage-pensions- etc

Tony, 30
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am often confronted by perceptions rather than as to
reality of facts. I view the issue about same sex marriages is much like it.
I will also deal with the issue of pensions as I view it is Also relevant to this, as explained
below.
35
QUOTE
Mr. REID: Some years ago the ingenuity of these two Houses in passing Money Bills was so enormous, and
their activity so indomitable, that tens of thousands of money Bills went rattling through them both to
recognise the valuable services of a number of doubtful individuals, rendered in the dim past if rendered at 40
all; and in that way the nation was saddled with a pension system of $150,000,000 a year. No wonder their
finances ran out. If we could think that the system would soon die with the veterans there might be perhaps
room for forgetfulness, but there was, I believe, an ingenious provision that if an old veteran happened to
contract a matrimonial alliance with a young maid of seventeen the pension lasted during her life as well. So
long as money is plentiful, 45
QUOTE
Like it or not this has eventuated in real life (as referred to below also), and I intend to address
this more details below, relating also to the same gender issue.
.
Last week, I attended to a check out where an about 25 year old young lady attended to me. I was 50
perplexed with her beauty and felt to tell her that. So I made known to her that I very much liked
the reddish colour of her hair (falling in curls well over her shoulders) and she was I view more
beautiful than Nicole Kidman. (She was not wearing any make up and her beauty radiated from
her face.) OK I might be a senior citizen but that doesnt mean I cannot appreciate the beauty of a
person. She was obviously very much appreciating my comments and her broad smile and 55

13
p13 29-7-2014
A 1
st
friendly response indicated this. I left toward the exist when I noticed my (81 year old) wife
walking to this young lady and later returned to me and made known she had asked the young
woman if it was her real hair colour, as it was beautiful, and she stated it was. And my wife told
her that she was a very beautiful woman. Perhaps my wife and I from a time when
complimenting a young woman for being herself and still beautiful was an acceptable standard 5
without any connotations of inappropriate conduct to make such comments.
.
At times one can see a person and be struck like lighting as to the persons beauty.
.
Actually, about 50 years ago, I was as a 19 year old drafted in the Royal Dutch Army, and the 10
following day I saw this soldier and I was amazed how beautiful this soldier was. My chest felt
the pouncing of my heart. A few hours I saw the soldier again and again the same feeling. I was
wondering if perhaps I could date her (I was then single). But didnt approach her. The next
morning, I was standing near my locker in the dormitory when I noticed this soldier standing on
the other side of the room near a locker. OK, I now realised that the soldier was not a woman, but 15
a man I had fallen for. Still, the face looked serene and I still felt the pouncing in the chest. I
decided not to try to look at this soldier but later that day again happen to see that soldier and
again I felt the punching in my chest. It was not a sexual issue but merely the face was so serene
Thereafter, I was able to avoid looking at this soldier and within a few weeks a visiting Captain
invited me to transfer to his company and I accepted. This then avoided any further problems. 20
I became married (now on my 3
rd
marriage) and lived a heterosexual relationship. However,
about half a century later I am still reminded upon the fact that one can fall in love with a person
of the same gender in a very innocent manner. Likewise, in times of distress and conflict a
person may be comforted and even so it was not intended the persons may then feel the warmth
of the other person attendance, and they may end up in a relationship with or without any sexual 25
involvements.

Regardless if any such comfort and affection may or may not involve or develop in a sexual
relationship it is something that for an outsider may be extremely difficult to understand. In
particular when one grows up in a household that has a doctrine of taboos then such kind of 30
relationships may be condemned or deplored.
.
When I grew up there was never any such kind of talk about same gender kind of relationships,
at least not in our family. I never knew then such thing as homosexuality existed! Hence, I am
perhaps more open minded than others, however I do not seek to give the impression and neither 35
intend to do so that I support same sex (same gender) kind of relationships. Nor do I view that it
is so to say a medical issue as some portray. In my view, nature just may have it that a person
falls in love with another person who is of the same gender, and often so unintended. My view
always has been that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should be left
alone. We cannot be some moral police going into peoples bedrooms, etc. 40
Having stated this, I do however not accept that people who are in love with a same gender
person then somehow should be entitled to get the same rights as heterosexual couples, such as
adaption, marriage, etc.
.
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 45
QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:
Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable
be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted. 50
END QUOTE

14
p14 29-7-2014
A 1
st
In my view (not being a scientist or a medical practitioner) 2 people of the same gender cannot
create a child. Hence, the marriage cannot be deemed accessible for them. Nor do I view 2
people living in a so called same sex de facto marriage should be allowed to have adoption rights
because it would disregard the right of the child. A child is ordinary born as an offspring of a
male and a female and so the natural environment should be for a child to grow up with a matter 5
and a father.
For sure parents may get divorce and enter subsequently in a same gender relationship, but the
child or children of the previous marriage at least have a parent of each gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution 10
QUOTE
The Mayans maintained several phallic religious cults, possibly involving homosexual temple prostitution.
[40][41]

Aztec religious leaders were heterosexually celibate and engaged in homosexuality with one another as a religious
practice, temple idols were often depicted engaging in homosexuality, and the god Xochipili (taken from both Toltec
and Mayan cultures) was both the patron of homosexuals and homosexual prostitutes.
[41][42][43][44]
The Inca 15
sometimes dedicated young boys as temple prostitutes. The boys were dressed in girls clothing, and chiefs and
headmen would have ritual homosexual intercourse with them during religious ceremonies and on holidays.
[45][46]

END QUOTE
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality 20
QUOTE
Africa
The first record of possible homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum,
an ancient Egyptian male couple, who lived around 2400 BCE. The pair are portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the
most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appear to be their heirs. Anthropologists Stephen Murray 25
and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships"
called motsoalle.
[54]
E. E. Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande warriors in the northern Congo routinely
took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated
in intercrural sex with their older husbands.
[55]

Americas 30
Among indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization, a common form of same-sex sexuality
centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given
a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner,
learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered
as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the 35
same sex.
Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin
America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinamb of Brazil.
[56][57]

The Spanish conquerors were horrified to discover sodomy openly practiced among native peoples, and attempted to
crush it out by subjecting the berdaches (as the Spanish called them) under their rule to severe penalties, including 40
public execution, burning and being torn to pieces by dogs.
[58]

East Asia
In East Asia, same-sex love has been referred to since the earliest recorded history.
Homosexuality in China, known as the passions of the cut peach and various other euphemisms has been recorded
since approximately 600 BCE. Homosexuality was mentioned in many famous works of Chinese literature. The 45
instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the classical novel Dream of the Red Chamber
seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexual people during
the same period. Confucianism, being primarily a social and political philosophy, focused little on sexuality, whether
homosexual or heterosexual. Ming Dynasty literature, such as Bian Er Chai (/), portray homosexual
relationships between men as more enjoyable and more "harmonious" than heterosexual relationships.
[59]
Writings 50
from the Liu Song Dynasty by Wang Shunu claimed that homosexuality was as common as heterosexuality in the
late 3rd century.
[60]

15
p15 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Opposition to homosexuality in China originates in the medieval Tang Dynasty (618-907), attributed to the rising
influence of Christian and Islamic values,
[61]
but did not become fully established until the Westernization efforts of
the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China.
[62]

South Asia
The Laws of Manu, the foundational work of Hindu law, mentions a "third sex", members of which may engage in 5
nontraditional gender expression and homosexual activities.
[63]
The Hijra are a caste of third-gender, or transgender
group who live a feminine role. Hijra may be born male or intersex, and some may have been born female.
Throughout Hindu and Vedic texts there are many descriptions of saints, demigods, and even the Supreme Lord
transcending gender norms and manifesting multiple combinations of sex and gender.
[64]
There are several instances
in ancient Indian epic poetry of same sex depictions and unions by gods and goddesses. There are several stories of 10
depicting love between same sexes especially among kings and queens. Kama Sutra, the ancient Indian treatise on
love talks about feelings for same sexes. Transsexuals are also venerated e.g. Lord Vishnu as Mohini and Lord Shiva
as Ardhanarishvara (which means half woman).
[65]
Europe
Classical period 15
Further information: Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Homosexuality in ancient Rome
The earliest Western documents (in the form of literary works, art objects, and mythographic materials) concerning
same-sex relationships are derived from ancient Greece.
In regard to male homosexuality such documents depict a world in which relationships with women and
relationships with youths were the essential foundation of a normal man's love life. Same-sex relationships were a 20
social institution variously constructed over time and from one city to another. The formal practice, an erotic yet
often restrained relationship between a free adult male and a free adolescent, was valued for its pedagogic benefits
and as a means of population control, though occasionally blamed for causing disorder. Plato praised its benefits in
his early writings
[66]
but in his late works proposed its prohibition.
[67]
Aristotle, in the Politics, dismissed Plato's
ideas about abolishing homosexuality (2.4); he explains that barbarians like the Celts accorded it a special honor 25
(2.6.6), while the Cretans used it to regulate the population (2.7.5).
[68]

END QUOTE

At http://goddessofsacredsex.com/2013/04/14/mary-magdalene-high-priestess-and-sacred-
prostitute/ we come across the issue if Mary Magdalene was a High Priestess prostitute. 30

At http://www.goddess.org/religious_sex.html we find a set out about religious sex.

At
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TCVX2N6zftMC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=priestess 35
+sex+animals&source=bl&ots=gmM3EQG-5s&sig=8U5J-
_FG10Ls3fX6iE2nCrE7K8Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VPi2Uum9OIvSkAX60oHIBQ&ved=0CIYBE
OgBMAk#v=onepage&q=priestess%20sex%20animals&f=false :

1. Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis 40
books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0876307691
A. W. Richard Sipe - 1995 - Psychology
The sexual histories of farm boys frequently record passing involvements with animals.
Sucking calves respond equally to their mother's teat, a finger, or a little ...
45
At http://www.matrifocus.com/SAM05/spotlight.htm yet is another webpage about priestess and
sexuality.
.
http://www.oocities.org/india505/asvamedha.htm
QUOTE 50
The Queen-Horse Copulation Ritual of the Asvamedha Yajna

16
p16 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The asvamedha yajna was the grand horse sacrifice which Aryan (Hindu) kings conducted to celebrate their
supremacy and for the prosperity& fertility of their kingdoms. The queen-horse copulation ritual was sometimes
conducted during this sacred rite; the relevant Hindu scriptural quotes are presented below.

I. The sexual ritual of the asvamedha yajna quoted from the Vedas (Satapatha Brahmana). 5
II. Lord Rama's mom & co-moms participate in the queen-horse sexual ritual of the asvamedha in the
Valmiki Ramayana.

I. The sexual ritual of the asvamedha yajna quoted from the Vedas.
10
The priests supervising the asvamedha: the officiant (adhvaryu), overseer (brahman), cantor (udgatri) and the
invoker (hotri). The king's wives which participate in the queen-horse copulation ceremony of the asvamedha: the
chief wife (mahishi), favourite wife, rejected wife and the fourth wife. The Satapatha Brahmana, quoted below,
offers clear instructions on how the queen-horse copulation ritual of the asvamedha is to be conducted; the king's
chief wife (the mahishi) is to copulate with the carcass of the horse while the priests and all the participants curse 15
each other in degenerate language:
END QUOTE

http://www.oocities.org/india505/asvamedha.htm
QUOTE 20

Then they draw out the penis of the horse and place it in the vagina of the chief queen, while she says,
'May the vigorous virile male, the layer of seed, lay the seed'; this she says for sexual intercourse.
END QUOTE
25
At http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/sarasvati/html/Mating~1.htm

1. Mating scenes: copulation of animals - The Hindu Universe
www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/sarasvati/html/Mating~1.htm
30
Mating scenes. Moulded tablet, Mohenjodaro (M489B); a standing human couple in
sexual intercourse (a tergo); two goats ... a three-headed animal. ... bison bull (Bos
gaurus) about to trample a person (have intercourse with a priestess?) ...

35
At http://contradictionsinthebible.com/bestiality-death-or-cut-off/
QUOTE

17
p17 29-7-2014
A 1
st
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE
CURIOUS TO KNOW WHY THE BI BLE CONTAINS THOUSANDS OF
CONTRADICTIONS AND WHAT THEY TELL US ABOUT THE BI BLE' S
COMPOSITIONAL HISTORY, AUTHORS, AUDIENCES, AND THE HISTORICAL
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PRODUCED IT? 5
END QUOTE

At http://contradictionsinthebible.com/bestiality-death-or-cut-off/
QUOTE
#189. What is the punishment for having sex with an 10
animal: Death OR being cut off OR being cursed? (Ex
22:18; Lev 20:15-16 vs Lev 18:22-23 vs Deut 27:21)
by Dr. Steven DiMattei Copyrighted and posted on September 1, 2013
The ancient scrolls that centuries later came to be labeled the Bible by a later generation 15
of readers contain variant punishments for having, or in one case intending to have, sex
with an animal. It is clear that this act was intolerable and highly offensive to all biblical
scribes. However, whether it was punishable by death or not may have been a point of
contention.
Our oldest text, E, clearly assigns death for this hideous act: Anyone who lies with an 20
animal shall be put to death (Ex 22:18). Clear and simple.
Likewise, Leviticus 20 deems this act punishable by death.
And a man who will have intercourse with an animal shall be put to death. And you
shall kill the animal. And a woman who will go up to any animal to mate with it: you
shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them. 25
(Lev 20:15-16)
END QUOTE

At http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1161951/pg1
1. Ayatollah Khomeini's Book: Rules For Having Sex with Children and ... 30
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1161951/pg1

Aug 14, 2010 -
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. ... During
sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's ..... In other news, 35
catholic priests are pedophiles and it's seen as GOOD ...

At http://www.piney.com/Enki.html
QUOTE
The Domestication of Enkidu 40
Aruru washed her hands, pinched off a piece of clay, cast it out into the open country.
She created a primitive man, Enkidu the warrior: offspring of silence, sky-bolt of

18
p18 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Ninurta. His whole body was shaggy with hair, he was furnished with tresses like a woman, His locks of hair grew
luxuriant like grain. Excerpted from S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (New York: Oxford University Press,
1991), pp. 52-56, 138-39.
Mythological animals include a composite bull-elephant. Some seals suggest influence from or at least traits held in
common with Mesopotamia; among these are the Gilgamesh (Mesopotamian epic) motif of a man grappling with a 5
pair of tigers and the bull-man Enkidu (a human with horns, tail, and rear hooves of a bull). Among the most
interesting of the seals are those that depict cult scenes or symbols; a god, seated in a yogic (meditative) posture and
surrounded by beasts, with a horned headdress and erect phallus; the tree spirit with a tiger standing before it; the
horned tree spirit confronted by a worshiper; a composite beast with a line of seven figures standing before it; the
pipal leaf motif; and the swastika (a symbol still widely used by Hindus, Jainas, and Buddhists). 10
Chapter 10 of Hebrew Myths by Robert Graves and Raphael Pitai. (Greenwich House, 1983), p.67-69 notes:
1. The tradition that man's first sexual intercourse was with animals, not women, may be due to the widely spread
practice of bestiality among the herdsmen of the Middle East, which is still condoned by custom, although figuring
three times in the Pentateuch as a capital crime. In the Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic, Enkidu is said to have lived with
gazelles and jostled other wild beasts at the watering place, 15
until civilized by Aruru's priestess. Having enjoyed here embraces for six days and seven nights, he wished to
rejoin the wild beasts but, to his surprise, they fled from him.
Enkidu then knew that he had gained understanding, and the priestess said: 'Thou art wise, Enkidu, like unto a
god!'
2. Primeval man was held by the Babylonians to have been androgynous. Thus the Gilgamesh Epic gives Enkidu 20
androgynous features: 'the hair of his head like a woman's, with locks that sprout like those of Nisaba, the Grain-
goddess.' The Hebrew tradition evidently derives from the Greek sources, because both the terms in a Tannaitic
midrash to describe the bisexual Adam are Greek: androgynos, 'man-woman', and diprosopon, 'two-faced'. Philo of
Alexandria, the hellenistic philosopher and commentator on the Bible, contemporary with Jesus, held that man was
at first bisexual; so did the Gnostics. This belief is clearly borrowed form Plato. Yet the belief of two bodies placed 25
back to back may well have been founded on observaation of Siamese twins, which are sometimes joined in this
awkward manner. The two-faced Adam appears to be a fancy derived from coins or statues of Janus, the Roman
New Year god.
END QUOTE
30
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/21/arts/critic-s-notebook-dr-no-laura-schlessinger-high-priestess-of-opinions.html
QUOTE
As for her opinions about homosexuality, the very word ignites her outrage. Some of her statements have been
collected by The Advocate, a magazine with an aversion to Ms. Schlessinger. An example: ''Rights? For sexual
deviants, sexual behavior, there are now rights? That's what I'm worried about with the pedophilia and the bestiality 35
and the sadomasochism and the cross-dressing. Is this all going to be rights too? Why does deviant sexual behavior
get rights?''
END QUOTE

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/illuminati/svali1_02.htm 40
QUOTE
Chapter Two: Jobs in the Illuminati (or Why They Spend All That Time Training People)
by: Svali

To understand generational programming, it helps to understand WHY the cult goes to the amount of trouble that it 45
does to place programming into people. Training represents time and effort, and no one- especially a cult member-
will spend that amount of energy unless there will be a return on the investment. This will be a simple overview of
some of the more common jobs in the cult. It is not meant to be exhaustive, or in any way considered to be
complete.
50
The cult has a very organized hierarchy of jobs. Like any large organization, in order to run smoothly, it needs
people who are well trained in their jobs- so well trained, that they can do their tasks without even thinking about
them. To maintain secrecy, this group must also have people completely dedicated to not revealing their roles in
the cult- even under threat of death or punishment. The cult wants members who are completely loyal to the group
and its tenets, who never question the orders they are given. These qualities in group members ensure the 55
continuance of the cult, and that its secrets are never revealed to the outside world.

19
p19 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Here is a sampling of some jobs in the cult (not listed in order of priority)
Informers
These people are trained to observe details and conversations with photographic recall. They are
trained to report to their local cult leader or hierarchy, or trainer, and will download large 5
amounts of information under hypnotic trance. Detailed knowledge of conversations or even
documents can often be retrieved in this manner. They are often used as "plants" to gather
information in both governmental settings, and within the cult meetings.
Breeders
These people are often chosen from childhood to have and breed children. They may be chosen 10
according to bloodlines, or given in arranged marriages or cult alliances, to "elevate" the
children. A parent will often sell the services of a child as a breeder to the local cult leader in
return for favors or status. These children are rarely used as a sacrifice; usually they are given to
others in the cult to adopt or raise, but the breeder is told that any child born to her was
"sacrificed" to prevent her looking for the child. Occasionally, in anarchical cults, a local leader 15
or parent will have a child as the result of an incestuous liaison. Such a child is given away or
killed, but the mother will be told the child was given away to a distant branch, and must be
given up.

Prostitutes 20
Prostitutes can be a male or female of any age. They are trained from earliest childhood to give
sexual favors to one or more adults in return for payment to the child's parents or their local cult
group. Occasionally, the prostitute may be given to a member of the cult, on a temporary basis,
as a "reward" for a job well done. Child prostitution is a big business for the cult, and training
very young children in this role is taken very seriously. Child prostitutes are also used to 25
blackmail political figures or leadership outside the cult.

Pornography
A child used in pornography ( which may include bestiality) can also be of any age or sex. Child
pornography is also big business in the cult, and includes snuff films. Children are trained in this 30
role from preschool on, often with the help or approval of the child's parents. The parents are
paid or given favors by the cult in return for selling their child or allowing their child to be
trained in this area.

Media personnel 35
These are very bright, verbal people. They will be sent to journalism school and will work for
local or regional media upon graduation. These individuals have many contacts within the
organization as well as the outside world. They write books and articles sympathetic to the
Illuministic viewpoint without ever revealing their true affiliation. They will tend to do biased
research in their articles, favoring only one viewpoint, such as denying the existence of DID or 40
ritual abuse. For instance, they will interview only psychiatrists/psychologists sympathetic to this
viewpoint and will skew data to present a convincing picture to the general public.

If necessary, they will outright lie or make up data to support their viewpoint. There are members
of groups whose people have been purposely trained to try and help formulate public opinion on 45
the nonexistence of the cult (i.e., cults don't exist, no rational person would believe this "mass
hysteria"). The Illuminists believe that to control the media is to control the thinking of the
masses. For this reason, they take training media personnel quite seriously. Helpers at rituals
Cleaners clean up meticulously after rituals. They will scour the site after a ceremony, rake the
area, etc. They are taught this job from preschool years on. 50

Preparers set up tables, cloths, candles, and paraphernalia quickly and efficiently. This job is
learned from infancy on. Readers read from the book of Illumination or local group archives;
they also keep copies of sacred literature in a safe vault and are trained in ancient languages.
Readers are valued for their clear speaking voices and ability to dramatize important passages 55
and bring them to life.

Cutters are taught to dissect animal or human sacrifices (they are also known as the "slicers and
dicers" of the cult). They can do a kill quickly, emotionlessly, and efficiently. They are trained
from early childhood on. 60

20
p20 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Chanters sing, sway, or lead choruses of sacred songs on high holy occasions.

High Priest/Priestess
The person who holds this job is changed every few years in most groups, although it may be 5
held longer in smaller, more rural groups. These people administrate and lead their local cult
group as well as coordinate jobs within the cult, give assignments, and pass on meeting dates
given from the local hierarchy or leadership council. They also will activate the local group's
telephone tree, evaluate their local group members for job performance, and lead in all spiritual
activities. They report to the local or regional leadership council over their group. 10

Trainers
These people teach local group members their assigned jobs and monitor the performance of
these jobs at local group meetings or after an assigned task. These people report to the high
priest/priestess over their group, as well as to the local head trainer on leadership council. 15

Punishers
These are the people who brutally punish/discipline members caught breaking rules or acting
outside of or above their authority. They are universally despised by other cult members,
although they will be praised for a job well done by the local high priest or priestess. Usually 20
physically strong, they will employ any method deemed necessary to prevent a recurrence of the
undesired behavior. Punishment may be public or private, depending upon the severity of the
infraction. Each local group has several punishers.

Trackers 25
These people will track down and keep an eye on members who attempt to leave their local
group. They are taught to use dogs, guns, taser, and all necessary tracking techniques. They are
also adept at using the internet to monitor a person's activities. They will track credit card use,
checks written, and employ other methods to find a missing person.
30
Teachers
These people teach group classes to children to indoctrinate cult philosophy, languages, and
specialized areas of endeavor.

Child care 35
These people care for very young children when the adults are at local group meeting. Usually
care is for young infants only. After age two, children are routinely engaged in some form of
group activity led by trainers of the youngest children. Infant child care workers are usually quiet
and coldly efficient.
40
Couriers
These members run guns, money, drugs, or illegal artifacts across state or national lines. Usually
they are people who are young and single without outside accountability. They are trained in the
use of firearms to get out of difficult situations. They must be reliable and able to get past any
anticipated barriers. 45

Commanding officers
These people oversee military training in the local groups and help ensure the smooth running of
these exercises. They will delegate jobs to those ranking under them and are responsible to the
local leadership council. The council will have at least one member on it representing the 50
military branch of the Illuminati. In addition, there are many military- related jobs beneath the
commanding officers.

Behavioral scientists
These individuals often oversee the training in local and regional groups. These students of 55
human behavior are intensely involved in data collection and human experimentation in the name
of the pursuit of knowledge of human behavior in the scientific realm. They are almost
universally cold, methodical, impersonal people and will employ any methods to study trauma
and its effects on the human personality. Their main interest centers around implementing
programming and cult control in the most efficient and lasting manner. 60

21
p21 29-7-2014
A 1
st
There are many other jobs inside the cult. The cult spends quite a bit of its time getting people to do these jobs for
them for FREE, which is why they PROGRAM people to believe they are doing their "family" and the world a
service. The reality, of course, is that the individual is being abused and taken advantage of by the cult.
END QUOTE
5
http://hermetic.com/osiris/legendofpasiphae.htm
QUOTE
Aleister Crowley and the Legend of Pasiphae
By Michael Osiris Snuffin (2001)
In his commentary on The Hierophant in The Book of Thoth, Crowley states: 10
There is a distinctly sadistic aspect to this card; not unnaturally, since it derives from the Legend of Pasiphae, the
prototype of all the legends of Bull-Gods. These persist in such religions as Shaivism, and (after multiple
degradations) in Christianity itself.
1

As per his usual style, Crowley mentions nothing more on this subject, leaving the investigation of this almost casual
remark to the curious reader. So what is the significance of the Legend of Pasiphae, and what is its relevance to the 15
Hierophant and the New Aeon? The answer lies scattered among Crowleys writings; but first let us recount the
Legend of Pasiphae itself.
The Legend is set in ancient Crete, where Poseidon sends King Minos a beautiful white bull up from the sea to offer
as a sacrifice to the god. King Minos is so struck with the beauty of this bull that he keeps it, sacrificing one of his
own herd in its place. His actions anger and offend Poseidon, who punishes Minos by causing his wife Pasiphae to 20
fall madly in love with the white bull. With the help of Daedalus, who constructs for her a wooden cow covered with
real hide, she copulates with the bull and conceives the monstrous Minotaur.
There is little mention of Pasiphae in Crowleys works, but what commentary and analysis we can find is very
enlightening. In The Paris Working, Crowley establishes the general concept behind the Legend as he interprets it:
This is the great idea of magicians in all times:-- 25
To obtain a Messiah by some adaptation of the sexual process.
In Assyria they tried incest; also in Egypt; the Egyptians tried brothers and sisters, the Assyrians mothers and sons.
Phoenicians tried fathers and daughters; Greeks and Syrians mostly bestiality. This idea came from India. The Jews
sought to do this by invocation methods. The Mohammedans tried homosexuality; mediaeval philosophers tried to
produce homunculi by making chemical experiments with semen. 30
But the root idea is that any form of procreation other than normal is likely to produce results of a magical character.
END QUOTE

It must be clear that regardless if you call it gay (for men) or lesbian(s) for women it still
will be homosexuality, where they practice the copulation. 35

As shown in the quotations (and the webpages references will show a lot more, that bestiality,
incest, etc, also was practiced in different times and different locations.
.
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 40
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia. 45
END QUOTE

Yes, we got rid of the white Australia but that was officially, however ample of people still in
reality practice it, because it is from their inner feelings. Yet, this is not necessarily that they are
racist but because they have grown up with this as such. Dont blame them for being taught 50

22
p22 29-7-2014
A 1
st
wrongly. Likewise so with desires to practice bestiality, homosexuality, bisexuality, incest, etc, it
all comes down to the desires of those people at the time, and to many they do not consider any
legal repercussions while others will do it despite of the legal repercussions that may flow from
their conduct., that is if caught.
5
As I recall Darren Hinch making known he had sexual inter course with a 14 year old girl, albeit
unaware at the time she was under age. And this also poses a problem. Ample of young girls,
who are underage have their sex drive, and they just desire to have sexual intercourse, and prey
upon men for it. Best is a married man so they are not tied to this man. This is not to portray
teenage gilds to be sexual deviants but merely so to say hearing the call of nature. But as much as 10
the white Australia was officially abandoned so is the incest and sex with underage children
(male or female) just that we do not ordinary explain this sufficiently. We talk to children about
the stranger danger and now perhaps do not trust your own father but what about teaching in
particular young girls about not seeking sexual pleasures with for example an older male or
female person? 15
While often it is said about young men being driven by their hormones, in my view young girls
are likewise driven by this, perhaps not as much as young man but still are.
And as I understand it some mothers are willing to use their young daughters so to say as bait to
lure men to have sex with them (their daughters), and then the mother can use this over the men
to keep them. It may come across as strange but reality is that there are women who have been 20
reported to use their daughters in such conduct.
As I understand it a man can go to sleep with a woman and during the night is awaken by the
female on top of him. He then, half asleep, goes along with sexual intercourse and may not even
realise until later if at all that not the mother but the daughter was actually on top of him.
I am not aware of any kind of education address these kind of issues, where girls /boys are taught 25
that no matter once own feelings you must remain in control and ensure that whatever is to
eventuate it is legal for all concerned.

http://www.englishforums.com/English/HuamanSexualityReligousTaboo/cdgrn/post.htm
QUOTE 30
Sexual intercourse can be an extremely pleasant experience for both man and woman. When both reach orgasm,
very strong feelings and physical satisfaction result. Medical experts report that sexual intercourse is beneficial
because it is a positive influence on the wellbeing of a couple. By making sexual intercourse such a pleasant
experience , nature has guaranteed that human reproduction occurs. Nature does not worry about morality, ethics or
principles. If a human body is hungry it looks for food, if its bladder is full if urinates, if it is tired it sleeps and if it 35
feels a sexual urge it will try to find a partner in order to fulfill that need.

After this analysis of the purely biological or physical side of human sexual behavior, one may ask the question:

~ What does religion have to do with it? 40

~ Why do some religions make such a fuss about the sexual behavior of their priests,

Nuns and adherents?
45
~ Why don't they let their people enjoy sex?
END QUOTE

Young girls have different times of progressing in their sexual desires, but many do end up
becoming single parents at a teenager age, and this surely indicates that they were sexual active. 50
People may not realise it but when a little girls has a mother who goes to bed with one man and
in the morning wakes up with another one next to her and in between had yet another during the
night then this may even sexual arouse the daughter in seeking to explore it. After all if her
mother shows this example and she can hear how her mother enjoys it then why not try it for

23
p23 29-7-2014
A 1
st
herself. She may not realise that being under age is making it a taboo for her to do so. And, if she
is close to the same size as her mother then a man may never realise it is the daughter and not the
mother who went on top of him.
While likely an extra ordinary incident, nevertheless it happened long ago. A young girl (I
estimate about 12 years old) confined that she felt very lonely because her parents interest was 5
only for her to win first prize in athletics. So, she wanted to have a baby she then could nurture in
a manner she so much missed from her parents. About 1 years later I understood the girl had
just given birth to a baby. Here we had a girl which parents were more obsessed with the
victories their daughter could provide for them then to give the love and affection and a home to
their daughter. 10

In my view what we need to do is not abandon our current laws and protections but work within
it and provide a better form of education. With those coming from other countries we need to
instil them with our Australian values that no matter what may have been their customs and
traditions in their native country they are no longer there and must assimilate with Australian 15
values, and one is that you respect a female in equality and that paedophilia, bestiality,
homosexuality are not accepted norms.
.
If for whatever reason 2 people fall in love with each other than provided the act within the
confines of the law then it is so to say none of our business. We cannot live each other lives. 20
Each of us we do not ourselves have a perfect live. However, society has set rules and ordinary
majority rules. Those who desire to so to say go against the grain and are unhappy with those
rules are entitled to move themselves to some country where they can so to say live forever
happy thereafter.
25
The moment you are going to give in as to marriages to be expanded to include the so called
same sex couples then why not bestiality and others, as to those practicing those so to say arts,
they should not be discriminated against.

QUOTE Mr. HOWE:
They show that the thrift practised by the people of Australia is unparalleled in the history of the world. But
there is another side to this question, and a very gloomy and sorrowful side indeed. There are records of
bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances corrupt, management, when the hard earnings of the
people and the savings of a lifetime have been swept away-have melted away like snow before the 35
noonday sun. Through this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided for
their old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of charity, and many of
them have had to accept even amongst ourselves the pauper's lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in
any other country is to the deserving poor one of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization.
END QUOTE 40

QUOTE Mr. HOWE.-
There are records of bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances corrupt, management, when the hard
earnings of the people and the savings of a lifetime have been swept away-have melted away like snow before 45
the noonday sun. Through this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided for
their old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of charity, and many of them
have had to accept even amongst ourselves the pauper's lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in any other
country is to the deserving poor one of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization. I know that we cannot
speak with too much respect or praise of our benefit societies. I have been a subscribing member to those societies 50
since I have attained manhood, and I claim to know a little of their inner working. So far as assistance in sickness or
in case of accident is concerned they are unsurpassed; but as a means of providing for the aged poor, or providing
for old age, they have not hitherto been a success. I claim to have read a great [start page 8] deal on this question,
and to know something about the opinions of the workers of this country, and I have come to the conclusion that
what is wanted is a national system, under which people who are subject to its laws shall run no risk of failure-so 55
that those who subscribe to a certain fund should know that in their old and declining age they should not eat the

24
p24 29-7-2014
A 1
st
bread of dependence. It is only a national system that can give such an assurance. We know that there are thousands
and thousands who have attained the meridian of life, and that many have passed it. We know that many of these
men have through various causes, and through no fault of their own, been unable to provide for their old age. That is
a very serious thing indeed to them. They reason to themselves in this way-"Here have I given all my best services to
the country; I have fulfilled all the obligations of a citizen, a father, and a husband in an exemplary manner, and I 5
see nothing in front of me in my old and declining days but charity." We all know that it is the fear of poverty that
drives many excellent men almost to despair. The Right Honorable Mr. Chamberlain, in speaking on this subject,
denounced the present system obtaining for the relief of the aged poor. He said that of all the workers of Great
Britain one out of every two, if he has attained to the age of 65 years, has to seek parish relief. As he said-"This
inadequate provision for old age is a disgrace to the nation, and a danger to all social order." I have given this 10
subject considerable study, and I have come to the conclusion that any system to be effective must be compulsory.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. HOWE (South Australia).- 15
You have admitted here that, within the four corners of this Bill, the Federal Parliament will have power to
pension its officers in high positions, and that they will not, and that they shall not, contribute towards old-
age pensions which are received from the nation, but under my proposal I wish to bring these humbler citizens
within the scope of this Act. It is [start page 18] my desire that the workers of Australia-the workers of this nation
that is going to be-shall be participators, though in a humbler manner, of the privileges enjoyed by those placed in 20
high authority. Notwithstanding the arguments of honorable members who have taken objection to my motion, I am
actuated by a desire to secure true federation. I preached federation long before it was a popular cause in this colony,
and many years ago I travelled throughout the length and breadth of my constituency advocating it. I would,
therefore, be the last to oppose any obstacle to its consummation. I have brought forward this amendment not to
weaken federation, but to strengthen it. Here, in Australia, we have a great continent, divided from the rest of the 25
world by thousands of miles of ocean, and how much more easy will it be for United Australia to undertake the
administration of a pension fund than it is for countries in the old world-take, for example, the great German
Empire-to do so. The people in those countries are not all on the same plane, as we are in Australia. Their
populations are made up of people of different nationalities. Yet the wise and learned of the great nation of
Germany-a country foremost amongst the great nations of the earth-have introduced a measure giving to their 30
workers that which I seek to give to the workers of Australia. It is more difficult to administer a system like this in a
country like Germany, where the people are not all of the same race, and do not all speak the same language, than it
would be here, where we are bound together by ties of kindred, and where we have common mutual interests. The
workers of this continent must for ages be a migratory class, they must go from one part of Australia to another to
seek employment; but even if they move from the Southern Sea to the Indian Ocean I want them all to be subject to 35
the same law. But I do not want to pauperize them. My object is to wipe away pauperism altogether so far as the
working and deserving poor of Australia are concerned. That will be done some day. All the philanthropists and the
leading statesmen of the world recognise that fact, and why should we in Australia lag behind? Are we afraid to give
power to the representatives who will be elected by the whole people of Australia to carry out the humane system of
which I have been speaking? I see no reason why any impediment should be thrown in the way of my suggestion. 40
We have not hesitated to federate the Postal departments of the various colonies. We say that every individual post-
office throughout Federated Australia shall be subject to the control of the federal authority. Every one of these post-
offices can be made an office of registration for the carrying out under the Federal Government of the scheme which
I have proposed. So far as the remarks of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Barton) are concerned, I regret
that his views should be such as he has expressed. He says that he does not wish to make this a national matter; that 45
this is purely a provincial matter, and is a subject which should not be introduced here. That is the old cry. Leave the
suffering and deserving poor to parish relief. That is what we want to abolish in Australia.
Mr. DEAKIN.-That was not Mr. Barton's argument.
Mr. BARTON.-I never said a word of the sort, nor a word that was like a word of the sort.
Mr. HOWE.-Did I understand the honorable and learned member to ask why should one portion of Australia pay 50
the cost of relieving the pauperism of another part?
Mr. BARTON.-No, that was another honorable member's argument. What I said was this: That the states, by their
social and domestic systems, might manufacture paupers and leave them for the Federation to pension.
Mr. HOWE.-If we made it a national affair would not that be impossible?
[start page 19] 55

25
p25 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-Not unless the federal authority takes over control of the land.
Mr. HOWE.-I have already said that any system to be effective must be compulsory. If I have anything to do in
the framing of an old-age system by the Parliament of Federated Australia I shall insist upon every worker
contributing to a certain fund. As I have already pointed out, the best of our citizens now try to make provision for a
rainy day. Do not the records of our financial institutions show that this is so? Have not the workers of Australia 5
been praised for the thrift which they have exercised? Certainly that is so. But, unfortunately, as I have already
shown, failure often overtakes these institutions. They collapse, and the provision which the workers thought
they had made for their declining days vanishes. No system but a national institution, through which they can
contribute from year to year during a vigorous life, and thus make provision for the time when they will be incapable
of longer supporting themselves will give security to the workers. I have been told by some honorable members that 10
I am preaching socialism, but I love liberty as much as any man does, and I do not wish to deprive any individual of
his liberty. But there are some things which a nation can achieve which cannot be successfully carried out by an
individual or any section of the people, and this is one of them. I have been asked by the honorable and learned
member (Mr. Symon), whose advice I very often follow, to withdraw this amendment. If I had not given to this
subject the attention which I have devoted to it for a considerable time, I should accept his advice; but I had thought 15
over the matter long and earnestly before I introduced it to the notice of the Convention at Adelaide. I again brought
it forward during our sittings in Sydney; and now, for the third time, I ask honorable members to give the proposal
their support. If I thought that the carrying of this motion would jeopardize federation, or hinder it at all, I should not
persist in it. I believe, however, that the carrying of the amendment will be of assistance to federation. If we can tell
the workers of this nation which we are about to build up that whatever they contribute to a pension fund will be 20
available for their future support, that they need not fear bankruptcy or corrupt and reckless management,
and that their independence will be secured from manhood to the day of their death, I think that that will strengthen
the great cause for which we are working. I thank honorable members for the kind way in which they have dealt
with the motion, whether they have spoken for or against it. Of course I value chiefly the proffered assistance of
those who will be found voting with me when a division is called for. I have every desire to oblige my honorable and 25
learned friend (Mr. Symon), but I honestly feel that I should be doing myself an injustice, and that the cause which I
have so much at heart would be jeopardized if I withdrew the amendment. Consequently, whatever happens, I shall
push the question to a division.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I wish to occupy one or two minutes in relieving the Hon. Mr. Howe of a
misapprehension which he has formed concerning my views upon this subject. I am not out of sympathy with the 30
honorable member's amendment or with his proposal to establish state pensions. The question is one which has not
reached the solving point with me. I am not quite sure whether it would not be an improvement to abolish poor-
houses and destitute asylums, and spend the money which is at present devoted to their maintenance in the
establishment of a system of state pensions. Some people may call this outdoor relief, others may think it a reward of
toil; it does not matter in what way you phrase it. It may be that such a system would be a better system than that 35
which we have now in the various colonies. All that I intended to say in [start page 20] my former remarks was
that this was peculiarly a matter for each state to legislate upon; that as you left the land, which is really the
source of every citizen's livelihood, in the hands of the several states, to establish a system of state pensions on
behalf of the Federation would be to place in the hands of the states the manufacture of paupers, and to
impose upon the Federation the responsibility of paying them pensions. I have not yet heard an answer to that 40
argument. The honorable member (Mr. Howe) is always reasonable in all that he says, and has given us great
assistance, sometimes sacrificing his own convictions to further the ends of federation; but I think that the advice of
the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) is good advice. The rejection of the motion upon division will be
read by those who do not look further than the bare print to mean that the Convention is against the consideration of
the case of those who are left stranded after a life of toil. 45
Mr. SYMON.-Against the principle.
Mr. BARTON.-Against the principle. It will be supposed that the Convention is a conservative body which
callously disregards the necessity for relieving human suffering.
Mr. HIGGINS.-And it will be used against the cause of federation at the elections.
Mr. BARTON. -When the question of federation comes to be put to a vote throughout Australia, this statement 50
will be used as a strong lever against the acceptance of the Constitution.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That is a strong reason for accepting the amendment.

26
p26 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-Nothing of the kind, unless we come to the conclusion that we are putting federation up to
auction. If it is true that we want to popularize federation by adopting arguments and systems and propositions that
are against our principles, then my honorable friend's suggestion is perfectly correct.
An HONORABLE MEMBER.-We have to do what we believe is right.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, we have to do what we believe is right, without regard to the question of popularity one way 5
or the other, and we are bound to act according to our own consciences. I take it we have no right, sitting as we do
here, to gratuitously project a question upon the public in such a way that the decision, one way or another, will
mean an attack upon the principles of federation from one section or another of its enemies. That is exactly the risk
we are incurring. I am quite in sympathy with Mr. Howe, but I really do think that the advice that has been tendered
to him is good advice. Knowing how strongly he is in favour of the consummation of federal union, I would put it to 10
him again whether it would not be advisable not to run the risk of having this motion rejected, as it most certainly
will be, and then having it said that those who reject it are against the principle which he advocates, when, as a
matter of fact, the root of the principle, at any rate, is in the consciences and in the minds of all of us?
Mr. DEAKIN.-In order that the issue may be placed clearly before those who criticise our action, it appears to be
desirable to recall what has already been done. We must remark at the outset that the choice which is offered to us is, 15
after all, largely a choice of procedure. It is not in the power of this Convention, while it allows clause 52 to remain
as it stands, to altogether exclude from the purview of the Federal Parliament this question of old age pensions. That
question can be remitted to the Federal Parliament at any time by any of the colonies which desire federal legislation
from it.
Mr. BARTON.-Under sub-section (35) of this clause? 20
Dr. COCKBURN.-It can only be universal if every colony consents to it.
Mr. BARTON.-That is so.
Dr. COCKBURN.-And any one colony can stand out.
[start page 21]
Mr. BARTON.-Under sub-section (35) it is not necessary for two colonies to agree. 25
Mr. DEAKIN.-It only applies to those who concur. That is exactly the distinction I am going to draw. The issue
between us is not as to the adoption of old-age pensions, but as to whether a majority in the Federal Parliament
should be enabled to adopt a system of old-age pensions without the unanimous consent of the colonies, or whether
it should only be enabled to adopt the system for those colonies which desire it. Our difference, therefore, is much
smaller than represented. If a division is taken I shall be found supporting the federal view of this question, 30
inasmuch as I have enough confidence in the judgment of the people of Australia to believe that those whom they
will return will have ability enough to surmount the very many difficulties in the formulation of a just scheme. If we
refuse to place in the hands of the Federal Parliament this power to legislate because of the intricacies of the
question with which it will have to deal, or because there are possibilities that the power may be unwisely used, we
shall have to strike out a great many more sub-clauses in clause 52. But since difference between us here is 35
comparatively minor, and as it is capable of being misrepresented, the advice offered to Mr. Howe appears to we to
be sound. If he is satisfied that he will be in a minority-and if one can judge from the addresses already delivered he
will be in a comparatively small minority-he will not be helping the cause he has at heart by pushing his motion to a
division at present. On the contrary, he will be simply placing certain members of the Convention in a position
which will necessitate explanations on their part that can be of no advantage to federation or to the measure with 40
which we are now dealing. Consequently, the honorable member might, at this stage at all events, reconsider his
position. If he will do so an opportunity can be afforded and I have no doubt will be afforded, to him, if, after mature
deliberation, he feels it necessary to go to a division at a later stage. In the meantime, he will have the advantage of
further consideration, and will not be committed to one course or another. To take up, briefly, the challenge of the
leader of the Convention, I would say that it does not appear to me that the argument which carries so much weight 45
in his mind is one that is at all final on the question. I cannot conceive the possibility of any colony wilfully, or even
with its own consent, manufacturing paupers of any kind, or pursuing a policy which could lead to that end.
Mr. BARTON.-I did not mean that.

27
p27 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. DEAKIN.-I can conceive what I would term a tory land policy which would have the indirect result of
manufacturing paupers, and I can understand that such a policy, by manufacturing paupers, might indirectly cast
its burden on the federal community.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Not unless they choose to accept it.
Mr. SYMON.-Try the single-tax policy. 5
Mr. DEAKIN.-That might relieve it of a number of its paupers. I do not make that statement of the single
tax as such, but a land tax might have that result. The leader of the Convention points to the divorce which exists
between the Federal Parliament and the land as contrasted with the state Parliaments, and their relation to the land,
but the difference is not so wide as his argument would imply. For, after all, there does rest dormant in this
Constitution a power of direct federal taxation which can reach the land if it ever becomes necessary to do so. 10
Consequently if it be found that by injudicious or injurious land systems this burden is being cast on the Federal
Commonwealth, the Federal Commonwealth will fortunately have within its own power a means of remedying to
some extent any such law, and of placing the burden where it ought to be placed-on the land.
[start page 22]
Mr. BARTON.-Would not that be the only rational thing for the Federal Parliament to do-to put on a land 15
tax?
Mr. DEAKIN.-Not necessarily, except in such extreme contingencies as the honorable member mentions, and
even then I can see difficulties. The argument that affected me most, next to the argument of the leader of the
Convention, was that used by Mr. Trenwith. Those who are in favour of old-age pensions cannot disguise from
themselves the fact that the existence of such a power in the Federal Commonwealth would undoubtedly be an 20
argument of considerable force that would be used in every colony against action on the part of that colony. Yet
even this does not deter me, since it is so obviously a question which can in some of its aspects, at all events, be
better dealt with on a national basis and in a federal way than by any single colony. I confess that in giving the vote I
shall give, if this question goes to a division, I shall do so with some reluctance, because it may have the effect of
postponing temporarily, at all events, the adoption of this system in colonies that are prepared for it, until the bulk of 25
the people were prepared for federal action. This does not seem to be a great difficulty, and having weighed it as
well as I can, and appealed to Mr. Howe to postpone the idea of taking a division, I would say again that the choice
offered to us is, or may be made, one of means. To put it frankly, it is a choice between giving the majority in the
Federal Parliament power to impose old-age pensions against the will of some colony that does not desire them, and
permitting old-age pensions to be established only in such colonies as may request the Federal Parliament to 30
undertake that task for them. The issue is not whether there shall be old-age pensions, but whether the Federal
Parliament shall have power to impose on any colony a scheme of which, as a colony, it may not approve.
An HONORABLE MEMBER. -Does the honorable member intend to vote for the motion if it goes to a
division?
Mr. DEAKIN.-Certainly; because this is distinctly a federal question, and that outweighs all other argument. The 35
necessity of dealing with it implies the absolute necessity of dealing with it in a national way. I admit the immense
difficulty. I agree with Mr. Wise that there will probably be a delay of many years before the Federal Parliament can
attempt to legislate upon it. The proposal is novel to all of us, and naturally the Commonwealth would desire to see
the effect of different systems tried in different colonies before attempting to select the best. In voting for this
proposal I do so in reliance on the judgment and wisdom of the representatives of the federated people of Australia, 40
confident that they will not leap the stile before they come to it, and that they will not attempt to deal with this
question until they have obtained the experience necessary for guidance by studying the different state systems. But
with that proviso it must be apparent to honorable members that this question cannot be finally and effectually dealt
with excepting on a national basis. When the right time comes, and when the Federal Parliament finds itself fully
equipped for its task, it will deal with the problem maturely, and ought to be able to equitably accomplish all that is 45
desired.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 50
Mr. REID.-Why not take over State banking? We could pay, the old-age pen-sions out of the profits.

28
p28 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I, strong and sincere federationist as, I am, with very defined-many may think
uncompromising-views as to state rights, am fair enough to recognise that rights and responsibilities are co-relative,
and I entirely object to this proposal.
Question-That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted-put.
The committee divided- 5
Ayes ... ... ... 20
Noes ... ... ... 25
Majority against the amendment 5
AYES
Berry, Sir G. Holder, F.W. 10
Braddon, Sir E.N.C. Isaacs, I.A.
Briggs, H. James, W.H.
Cockburn, Dr. J.A. Kingston, C.C.
Crowder, F.T. Lyne, W.J.
Deakin, A. Quick, Dr. J. 15
Forrest, Sir J. Solomon, V.L.
Glynn, P.M. Wise, B.R.
Gordon, J.H.
Hackett, J.W. Teller.
Hassell, A.Y. Howe, J.H. 20
NOES.
Brown, N.J. McMillan, W.
Carruthers, J.H. Moore, W.
Dobson, H O'Connor, R.E.
Douglas, A. Peacock, A.J. 25
Downer, Sir J.W. Reid, G.H.
Fraser, S. Symon, J.H.
Grant, C.H. Trenwith, W.A.
Henning, A.H. Turner, Sir G.
Henry, J. Venn, H.W. 30
Higgins, H.B. Walker, J.T.
Leake, G. Zeal, Sir W.A.
Lee Steere, Sir J.G. Teller.

29
p29 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Lewis, N.E. Barton, E
PAIR
Aye. No.
Clarke, M.J. Fysh, Sir P.O.
Question so resolved in the negative. 5
END QUOTE

It appears to me that the vote of 7 March 1898 showed that some 10 delegates who voted on 21
January 1898 against the amendment to provide for Old Age and Disability pensions on 7 March
1898 voted in favour of it. Another 10 Delegates who opposed the amendment on 21-1-1898 10
were not in the vote on 7-3-1898. Whereas 7 Delegates who voted in favour on 21-1-1898 were
not in the vote on 7-3-1898. What however was the end result was, that that of the total voting on
both occasions 23 delegates voted in favour of the amendment to include Old Age and disability
pensions to be included in the constitution as a federal power. Delegate Mr Howe (The
Honorable JAMES HENDERSON HOWE. South Australia) having persist in the Adelaide, 15
the Sydney and twice in the Melbourne conventions to pursue this matter clearly having been
defeated on 21-1898 didnt give up and we must own a gratitude to him for this.

QUOTE 20
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-This subject is one to which I have given a great deal of thought, and one which I
believe to be of very grave importance. I think it is imperatively necessary that the Governments of the various
civilized countries of the world shall in the near future make some provision for the evening of the lives of those
who have worn themselves out in the service of their country. Because, I hold that it is utterly unimportant where a
man works, he is still working for his country. He may be a soldier prepared to fight for his country, he may be a 25
civil servant working in one of the departments of the state, or he may be a navvy assisting to build a railway which
is to develop the country in which he lives-he may be anything, but, so long as he is working in the country, be is
serving the rest of the people of that country. When this question was before the Convention previously, I voted
against Mr. Howe's proposal to give the Federal Parliament at the beginning the power to deal with old-age
pensions. I believed then, and believe now, that giving this power to the Federal Parliament will have the effect of 30
retarding rather than advancing this movement. I have, however, since the matter was last before the Convention,
consulted a large number of persons whose opinion I value very highly, and I have arrived at the view that the
inclusion of this provision amongst the powers of the Parliament will very materially add to the passage of the Bill
when presented to the people for their vote. Having that thought in mind, I have resolved on this occasion to vote for
the inclusion of the provision in the Constitution at this stage. It will be remembered that I urged and held then that 35
ultimately, before the matter could be effectively dealt with, it would require to be handed over to the Federal
Parliament. My view was that the states which undertook to legislate upon this subject would find that, with a
population so migratory as ours, the difficulty is too great, and would have to ask the Federal Parliament to take the
question up. I felt then, and I feel now, that the fact of the states dealing with the [start page 1996] question, and
seeing its difficulty in actual operation, and calling upon the Federal Parliament to deal with it, would conduce to the 40
old-age pensions subject being legislated upon by the Federal Parliament at a much earlier stage than would
otherwise be the case. But in view of the widespread feeling amongst the working classes that this question is so
important, and can be so much more effectively dealt with collectively than separately as regards the states, I have
resolved to vote for the amendment, and hope it will be included in the Constitution, for the reason that it will be one
other inducement to a large number of persons to accept the Federal Constitution when it is submitted. I hope that 45
my fears-which I still hold-that the inclusion of the proposals now may possibly temporarily retard the adoption by
the states of this principle will be more than compensated for by the effectiveness of it when it is dealt with by the
Federal Parliament.
The CHAIRMAN.-I will put it that this proposed new sub-section be sub-section (24A) in clause 52, instead of
sub-section (23), because I think that divorce ought to come after marriage. 50
Question-That the proposed new sub-section be inserted in the Bill-put.
The committee divided-

30
p30 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Ayes ... ... ... 26
Noes ... ... ... 4
Majority for Mr. Howe's
sub-section ... ... 22
AYES. 5
Abbott, Sir J.P. Grant, C.H.
Braddon, Sir E.N.C. Hackett, J.W.
Briggs, H. Higgins, H.B.
Brown, N.J. Holder, F.W.
Brunker, J.N. Isaacs, I.A. 10
Carruthers, J.H. Kingston, C.C.
Clarke, M.J. Quick, Dr.J.
Cockburn, Dr. J.A. Solomon, V.L.
Deakin, A. Trenwith, W.A.
Douglas, A. Turner, Sir G. 15
Downer, Sir J.W. Zeal, Sir W.A.
Forrest, Sir J.
Fraser, S. Teller.
Glynn, P.M. Howe, J.H.
NOES. 20
Lewis, N.E.
McMillan, W. Teller.
O'Connor, R.E. Barton, E.
PAIR.
Aye. No. 25
Gordon, J.H. Dobson, H.
Question so resolved n the affirmative.
END QUOTE

It must therefore be clear that pensions were intended for the old age and for the disabled 30
and not for young people to get married to a= near dying person and then so to say hold the
general community at ransom for a lifelong pension as a widow/widower.

Before dealing with this matter lets consider also the following issue.
35
The issue s51 of concurrent versus exclusive powers

31
p31 29-7-2014
A 1
st

QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-Had the honorable member who moved the insertion of this clause
proposed to make it an exclusive power of the Commonwealth, then I think that the arguments used by the
honorable member (Mr. Trenwith) would have applied; but I anticipate that the has no such intention, nor has any 5
member of the Convention any intention to make this an exclusive power, but merely to make it one of the
concurrent powers of the Commonwealth, under which the Commonwealth can act, at the same time not forbidding
any individual state from acting.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Would the honorable member give two pensions to the same person?
Dr. COCKBURN.-Certainly not. I would simply leave it to the Commonwealth, at any time that the Federal 10
Parliament thinks proper, to bring this power into operation.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 15
[start page 10]
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-On the merits of the matter I am with the honorable member (Mr. Trenwith) and
therefore I wish to be understood as having said all that he said. As to the point raised by the honorable member (Dr.
Cockburn), I should like to point out that he is under a misapprehension. Owing to the necessity for maintaining
laws on the subjects specified in clause 52 until federal legislation can take the place of state legislation, those 20
powers are only concurrent. The object is that the State legislation shall disappear, and the power become exclusive.
Every one of the subjects specified in clause 52 is really intended by this Constitution to be exclusively controlled by
the Federal Parliament. I was puzzled very much by this question of exclusive power and concurrent power until I
saw the object of making those powers only concurrent. The object is this, that for some time to come it will not be
possible for the Federal Legislature to pass laws on these subjects, and it is necessary to have some laws on them-the 25
state laws if they exist-until federal laws are enacted; but the moment a federal law is passed on any one of these
subjects, under the provision under the head of "States" the federal law prevails over the state law.
Dr. COCKBURN.-Not so far as they are not inconsistent.
Mr. REID.-Then my honorable friend is landed in this extraordinary position, that he seriously proposes that we
are to have two systems of old-age pensions, and that each is to prevail so long as it is not inconsistent with the 30
other.
Dr. COCKBURN.-No.
Mr. REID.-That would be the effect of the legislation.
Dr. COCKBURN.-As soon as individual colonies work out a successful scheme, the Federal Parliament will
adopt it, and then there will be one law-the federal law. 35
Mr. REID.-That seems beautifully simple, but it really is not, I assure the honorable member. The sooner that
honorable members realize this central fact that any one of the subjects specified in clause 52 is intended to be
absolutely and exclusively within the province of the Federal Parliament the better. The structure of the clause is, as
it is for the reason I have mentioned, that until there are some federal laws the state law must prevail to keep
everything alive to keep the administration of these subjects alive. If the power were made exclusive honorable 40
members will see what would happen. The moment the Federal Constitution was adopted and came into force all the
state laws on these subjects would lapse, the subject would have passed away from the state into the province of the
Federal Legislature. That would bring about a state of confusion which we and the draftsmen of this Bill were
careful to avoid, so that the point put by my honorable friend (Dr. Cockburn) instead of making the proposition of
the honorable member (Mr. Howe) more eligible really is rather against it. 45
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-The representative of New South Wales (Mr. Wise) has pointed out the chief difficulty which will 50
operate in not allowing federal legislation upon the subject of old-age pensions. I can, I think, speak with some

32
p32 29-7-2014
A 1
st
knowledge upon the matter, because I am a member of the commission which has been appointed in South Australia
to deal with the whole subject. The great difficulty which will arise in formulating a scheme of national insurance
is that the sphere of the operation of the business of the state would not be wide enough. Averages must be struck on
a wide basis. In New Zealand they have found that they have had to abandon one class of State insurance-they have
had no scheme of old-age pensions yet, but I refer to the industrial branch-because the limits of work were not wide 5
enough to allow of any certainty between the premium paid and the business that would correspond to these
payments. In Australia there is another difficulty which will be experienced, and [start page 12] it is a difficulty
which will not operate so much in any of the older countries of Europe. Our population is comparatively migratory
in character. No system of old age pensions, no matter, what you might adopt, would be financially satisfactory,
unless the benefits were postponed from periods varying from 40 to 60 years. In Germany 70 is the limit; in 10
Denmark, I think, 65; in French schemes which have been tried and regarded as unworkable there was a limit of
something like 70 years. In this country, owing to the migratory character of our population, federal provision
should be made because otherwise, after the coming into operation of this system in a state-say South Australia-a
man leaving would lose his grip upon the benefits that would accrue to him in going to another colony. From the
purely actuarial point of view I should rather prefer a system of federal insurance than a system of pensions provided 15
by particular states. Again, it has been said by Mr. Reid that we shall be in this matter interfering with the power of
state legislation, because the Federal Parliament will, while it legislates, have exclusive power. I do not,
however, think that this is the operation of the section under the heading of "the States" to which the right honorable
gentleman has referred.
Mr. REID.-What I say is that when the Federal Legislature Legislates upon any matter dealt with in this clause its 20
legislation will take the place of the legislation of the states, so far as they are consistent.
Mr. GLYNN.-I understand the position of the right honorable gentleman, but you cannot have inconsistent
legislation which will endow the Federal Parliament with the power of giving old-age pensions. Moreover, I think
the more efficient way is to give this power to the Federal Parliament, trusting in the united wisdom of those who
represent the colonies in the Federal Parliament, and believing, that they will not pass any scheme if after a little 25
experience of the working of the Parliament they find that a scheme of the kind will be more effectively worked by
the state Legislatures.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
I wish to add a few words in support of what Mr. Reid has said as to the effect of inserting these provisions in the
Bill. I think it cannot be too emphatically declared and too constantly borne in mind that the moment the
federal authority legislates the legislative provisions in this Bill are exclusive. They are either exclusive or
concurrent. If they are concurrent it would be most mischievous to have the power to legislate in regard to old-age 35
pensions exercised concurrently by the Federal Parliament and the Legislatures of the states. Look at the struggles
there would be; look at the opportunities for corruption; look at the difficulties that might be occasioned in the state
Legislatures in connexion with a matter of this sort, supposing there was already a system of state pensions, and it
was sought also to introduce a system of national pensions. But if this power is exclusive, as I have no hesitation in
affirming my own personal view that it is, you may have in one colony a system of state pensions prevailing on a 40
fairly liberal scale, and your national and Federal Parliament introducing another system which the state may regard
as parsimonious, and yet the federal legislation will wipe away the local legislation on the subject. Now, it is clear
that the opportunities for difficulties to arise through the door being open for all manner of discontent and bitterness
on this subject will be something we cannot exaggerate, and which we ought to do our very best to avoid. This
being, therefore, as I believe, a matter of purely local concern, it ought to be left to the local Parliaments, and I 45
emphatically agree with Mr. Peacock that we have no more right to introduce this question than we have to
introduce the control of education, which we all agree should be left to the local Parliaments. No one can feel
more deeply than I do the earnest and thorough manner in [start page 16] which Mr. Howe introduced this subject to
the Convention. Our sympathies are with him. Our feeling is-and I think the fact ought to be thoroughly well known-
that this is a matter for domestic concern, just as all other similar matters are. Therefore, Mr. Howe will be acting 50
wisely, and in that spirit which I am sure always influences him, and will promote the progress of our business, if he
will withdraw his amendment, and not press it to a division.
Mr. LEAKE (Western Australia).-In considering this amendment, the view that strikes me is that pensions
may be of two kinds. There may be state pensions or there may be federal pensions; and, therefore, unless this
provision is adopted, as proposed by Mr. Howe, what power will the Federal Parliament have to provide 55
pensions for its Judges? I merely give that case as an illustration. Is it intended to deprive the Federal
Parliament of the power to pension the civil servants of the Commonwealth?

33
p33 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. GLYNN.-This is altogether exclusive of that.
Mr. LEAKE.-What power, without this provision, has the Federal Government to allow pensions?
Mr. GLYNN.-Ample power.
Mr. LEAKE.-Under what provisions?
Mr. GLYNN.-Under its general control. 5
Mr. MCMILLAN.-They are exclusively federal.
Mr. LEAKE.-If that is so, my objection is met. As I understood the arguments of most honorable members, the
intention was to place the civil servants of the state on a more favorable footing than the civil servants of the Federal
Government; but if the Federal Government has the power to control this question of pensions, well and good,
because I take it it was never intended that the civil servants of the Commonwealth should be deprived of a 10
privilege which the civil servants of the state posses.
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I would not have again addressed myself to this question, but for the
importance which it has assumed, especially in view of the haziness in some honorable members' minds as to
the real scope of this c1ause 52. I cannot conceive how any honorable member of this Convention can fail to
understand that all these powers in clause 52 are powers which are inserted there in order that the Federal 15
Parliament, as soon as possible, shall, make them exclusive powers of the Federation.

END QUOTE

QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be
practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section would not
interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in
hand. 25
END QUOTE

QUOTE
[start page 703] 30
Mr. DEAKIN: There is great force in the hon. and learned member's argument as to that being the proper thing to
do; but, until that is done, will the state have power to take action? Suppose the commonwealth does not interfere,
will it be said that the states shall be prohibited from doing that which they can do at present? I agree with the hon.
and learned member that the commonwealth should possess the exclusive power if it chooses to exercise it; but is it
not undesirable in a bill for the constitution of the commonwealth to impose a disability on the states? 35
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What I have had more particularly in my own mind was the immigration of coolies
from British India, or any eastern people subject to civilised powers. The Dutch and English governments in the east
do not allow their people to emigrate to serve in any foreign country unless there is a special law made by the people
of that country protecting them, and affording special facilities for their going and coming. I am not sure that that
applies to Japan. It might apply to the Government of China, but I do not know whether it does. I maintain that no 40
state should be allowed, because the federal parliament did not choose to make a law on the subject, to allow the
state to be flooded by such people as I have referred to.
Mr. GILLIES: Would this clause prevent any state from making a law on the subject until the federal parliament
did so?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Yes, and I maintain that it ought to be so. 45
Mr. GILLIES: Who, except the federal parliament, is to determine to what race this applies?
Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS: It seems to me that in giving this exclusive power you are doing what you do not intend
to do. Suppose that people of an alien race from India or China went to Queensland, and the commonwealth did not
choose to pass a law dealing with the matter, not being interested in that particular question, is the state parliament

34
p34 29-7-2014
A 1
st
not to make a law to exclude those aliens? It seems to me that by putting in the word "exclusively" you are doing
what you do not intend to do, and you are giving no power to any state, when invaded by a foreign race, to protect
itself. It cannot do so, because the exclusive right rests with the commonwealth.
Mr. WRIXON: I do not think that the point put by Mr. Deakin has been sufficiently met. He has no objection
whatever to the federal parliament dealing with this subject. The point is whether until the federal parliament 5
touches the matter the hands of the states are to be tied altogether.
Mr. GILLIES: I do not think they are!
Mr. WRIXON: Exclusive legislative power is given to the federal parliament. That would exclude the states.
Mr. GILLIES: The hon. member has not noted the point which I made. The clause says:
The affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable 10
to the general community.
I say that, until the federal parliament deals with that, and determine the race to whom it is applicable, you
cannot tell what race it is. They have to make a special law to deal with the matter.
END QUOTE
15
This makes it very clear that when there is an exclusive power the States no longer can
legislate upon the subject, even if the Commonwealth does not legislate on the subject matter.
.
When the Commonwealth legislated as to the 11-11-1910 Land tax office, it made this an
exclusive Commonwealth legislative power and as such, irrespective that it abolished the land 20
tax legislation it nevertheless remained an exclusive Commonwealth legislative power, as the
constitution doesnt provide for it to be reversed back to the states.

Now lets us get back to the issue of same gender/sex relationships.
25
.
QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:
Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable 30
be compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Of course, when I speak of a state, I include also any territory occupying the position of quasi-state,
which, of course, stands in exactly the same position.
END QUOTE 40

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. 45
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will 50
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

35
p35 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
5
As such, it must be clear that the States/Territories (quasi states)have no legislative powers to
provide for same gender marriages, as marriages falls under commonwealth exclusive
legislative powers, since the Commonwealth legislated on this subject.

Since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE 10
ALWAYS PREVAIL and as such gained a considerable understanding what goes on that
ordinary may not be talked about.

For example a young woman (teenager) pregnant decides that she might as well marry some old
age war veteran so she can secure a lifelong pension as well as getting veterans affairs benefits. 15
This young woman obviously outlived this old age war veteran but somehow still continues to
claim at registration of birth of each child that is subsequently born that her (now late) husband
fathered the child. It is only upon trying to register the 5 child, years after her old age war veteran
passed away that the registrar of birth, deaths and marriages finally realise this woman is to say
taking everyone to the cleaners for getting children as if they were fathered by this old long death 20
war veteran husband.

QUOTE
Mr. REID: Some years ago the ingenuity of these two Houses in passing Money Bills was so enormous, and 25
their activity so indomitable, that tens of thousands of money Bills went rattling through them both to
recognise the valuable services of a number of doubtful individuals, rendered in the dim past if rendered at
all; and in that way the nation was saddled with a pension system of $150,000,000 a year. No wonder their
finances ran out. If we could think that the system would soon die with the veterans there might be perhaps
room for forgetfulness, but there was, I believe, an ingenious provision that if an old veteran happened to 30
contract a matrimonial alliance with a young maid of seventeen the pension lasted during her life as well. So
long as money is plentiful,
QUOTE

Below I have quoted an article at http://www.avoiceformen.com/series/unknown-history-of- 35
misandry/war-marriage-vampires-fake-war-brides-of-ww-i/
QUOTE
War-marriage vampires & Fake war brides of WW I

December 11, 2013 By Robert St. Estephe 40
END QUOTE
What we have therefore is that young woman, including female teenagers, have been
targeting old men for marriage purposes so as to secure, if possible, a lifelong pension
security.
Now, with same gender marriage, what would stop male teenager to now follow the same 45
practice if they can perhaps secure permanent benefits when (so to say) the old man croaks
it?
All he has to do is to claim some form of marriage, even if de facto but being officially
married give an undisputable right) and even if no sexual intercourse ever eventuated we
are making it easy for them to claim a de facto marriage having existed. 50
After all as I understand it ample of women are targeting older men and visa versa men
targeting older women, so if they die they can claim the estate.
As I indicated from onset of this writing, I fell for the attractive soldier at the time in the
assumption it was a female soldier. When I later discovered it was a male the attraction

36
p36 29-7-2014
A 1
st
didnt subside just that I resolved it permanently by moving away. However, this is not
always a solution or even possible and then people of the same gender may end up being in
a relationship irrespective is this includes or doesnt include sexual issues.
We as a society have an obligation that those who are living here in our midst and also in
particular those who are coming from other countries where their customs and traditions are in 5
conflict to our own social accepted norms and in particular legislative provisions, we ensure that
we hold them accountable for this.
I understand recently a judge letting a rapist off because he held that the man, albeit born in
Australia, was growing up in a culture where women had no value. To me this judge should have
been removed from the bench. We cannot allow nor tolerate the rape of a woman, irrespective if 10
the perpetrator had some cultural/traditional bring up different then our societies values and laws.
Just imagine one of your daughters being raped by a Australian born male, but the judge will
excuse him for having been under the spell of his parents foreign customs and traditions. I doubt
you would accept this kind of nonsense.
There can be no doubt either that to many a person an animal may be very close to a person, 15
indeed people leave often some or all of their estate to an animal.
.
Some may, with intent or not end up having a sexual relationship with an animal, and some may
argue that this eventuated over centuries, such as a High Priestess having sex with a goat, etc.
Others will rely upon the scriptures that virgin girls would have to serve the sexual demands of a 20
stranger for religious purposes, before they can be married, etc.

See also my previous correspondence: 131209-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. regarding
the Bible, Religion, etc AND ALSO CONSIDER WHAT IS SET OUT AT
http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/whoops-accidental-rape/ 25

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6456976
QUOTE
Five-year-old accused of sexual assault
30
ABC November 11, 2009, 6:01 am
Education Queensland is investigating a serious complaint against a five-year old
school boy on the Gold Coast.
Two five-year-old girls have told their parents they were sexually assaulted by the
boy on more than one occasion in a toilet at Coomera Springs State School. 35
The school's principal has advised police and the Department of Child Safety in
line with departmental policy under the Child Protection Act.
Education Queensland says it is an extremely difficult situation when young
children are involved, but student safety must be the highest priority.
A police spokeswoman says that because the boy is under 10, by law, he was 40
not criminally responsible and no charges will be laid.
She says it is up to the school and the department if any disciplinary action will
be taken.
END QUOTE
45
Alright, pending the age of the boy, he may need some education, but children do explore and we
have to understand this also, and not turn something into some criminal conduct that might be
innocent to the child, even so abhorrent to the victim(s).

37
p37 29-7-2014
A 1
st
.
The question is; Where is the balance? What may be deemed appropriate action to deal with the
matter for one may not be deemed adequate for another.

We have where scriptures allow sexual relationships with what we consider to be under aged 5
children, but to those people who grow up in such culture/tradition there is nothing wrong with
an adult man marrying some 6 year old girl and then have a sexual relationship with such girl for
purpose of children, etc.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6462729 10
QUOTE
Five charged for ritual child sex
crimes
By Donald Bradley, AAP November 12, 2009, 3:59 pm
A Missouri man and his four sons have been charged with the ritualistic sex abuse of his six 15
grandchildren, and police are searching the family farm for buried bodies.
Officials declined to say whether the remains they were searching for were those of adults or children but
said they were investigating allegations of murder.
"There have been indications of a body or bodies in numerous locations," Lafayette County Sheriff Kerrick
Alumbaugh told a press conference. 20
The backhoes began digging before noon on Wednesday, and a more careful search was undertaken to
find glass jars filled with notes the children wrote describing the horrific abuse.
"When the victims were younger they were writing down what had happened to them and placing it in
those jars and subsequently burying it in the property in hopes to forget about the occurrences," said Bill
Lowe, a spokesman for the Missouri Highway Patrol. 25
The alleged crimes came to light in August when a 26-year-old woman approached police with the
suppressed memories of years of abuse at the hands of her father, uncles and grandfather.
Her four sisters and brother are cooperating with police and more charges are expected to be filed, Lowe
said.
"We believe there are other victims out there," Alumbaugh said. "Pedophiles don't stop with just one. They 30
keep going."
The woman described nine incidents of abuse which she believes began when she was about five and
ended after she became pregnant and was forced to have an abortion at age 11.
The abuse included elaborate "wedding" ceremonies in which the girls would pick flowers to adorn their
hair and wear special dresses. 35
After one such ceremony, she was "wed" to an uncle and led to a chicken coop.
"She remembers her grandfather putting a blanket over the glass door and saying 'you all have fun'", the
charging documents said.
In another incident the woman recalled being forced to watch as her brother was sexually abused and the
charging documents also described an incident of sexual abuse involving a dog. 40
Lowe declined to say whether other family members were aware of the abuse or present when it
occurred.
"I do not know what their role was as far as knowing anything," he said. "That's part of the investigation
that's still ongoing."
The grandmother died in December 1991, the Kansas City Star reported, citing her obituary. The alleged 45
abuse occurred between 1988 and 1995 at the farm in Bates City, Missouri.

38
p38 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The five men were formally charged with various counts of child sex abuse on Tuesday and remained in
jail on Wednesday after a judge set bonds ranging from $US30,000 ($A32,275) to $US75,000
($A80,690).
Charged in the crime were: Burrell Edward Mohler Sr, 77; Burrell Edward Mohler, Jr, 51, the father of the
six children; Jared Leroy Mohler, 48; Roland Neil Mohler, 47; and David A Mohler, 52. 5
END QUOTE

So, here we have some family orientation in their kind of rituals, being it called religion or just
criminal conduct. Whatever it may amount to as a defence for the accused, we as a civilised
society should never condone this kind of practices. 10
.
But, we neither can place out demands upon other nations that somehow they follow out Western
cultures while at the same time do not follow our Western criminal culture. We may not approve
of the way under aged children are subjected to marriage and are subjected to what we may
consider by our standards rape, sexual abuse, paedophilia, etc, but we must remain open minded 15
to that any such conduct in another country may be within their provisions of law and we have no
right to impose our customs, traditions and our views upon those countries, where we ourselves
basically tell them Mind you own darn business and do not try to dictate us how we live our
lives.
20
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/female-teacher-who-abused-boys-8-in-1970s-shows-no-remorse/story-
e6frf7kx-1225895103994
QUOTE
Last Updated: July 24, 2010
25
Female teacher who abused boys, 8, in 1970s shows no remorse
Kate Jones
From: Herald Sun
July 21, 2010 2:30PM
A FEMALE teacher who abused two eight-year-old boys in the 1970s is not remorseful, a court heard today. 30
The County Court was told Josephine Mary Greensill, formerly Josephine Sumpton, denied
sexually abusing her Grade 3 students, despite being convicted by a jury of nine counts of
indecent assault.
The court heard Greensill, then 29, had sex with the boys in a tent in the backyard of her
Montrose home. 35
When asked by Judge Gabriele Canon about Greensill's remorse, lawyer Chris Carr said his
client had none.
"I say nothing about remorse,'' he said. "There's no admission, there's no remorse.''
Prosecutor John Livitsanos told the court Greensill's molestation of the Bayswater Primary
School students was pre-meditated. 40
He said Greensill, of Altona Meadows, repeatedly asked the mother of one of the victims if the
child could stay at her house and despite initially being told no, she persisted until the mother
relented.
Related Coverage
Drama teacher: Girls filmed in 'skimpy' outfits 45
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"You couldn't find an example of worse kind of offending,'' Mr Livitsanos said.
"Both victims didn't know what was going on. They had never had sex before and were not really in tune with what
sex was.''
In victim impact statements tendered to the court, both men said Greensill's abuse had made them distrustful of 50
women and resulted in unhappy relationships.
"What she did will haunt me to the day I die,'' one of the victims said in his statement.

39
p39 29-7-2014
A 1
st
"It's cost me my childhood.''
Judge Canon described the crimes as a gross breach of trust.
"She exploited her position,'' Judge Canon said.
Mr Carr said his client's offending was an isolated incident and she was otherwise an "admirable citizen'' who
selflessly contributed to her community. 5
Mr Livitsanos called for Greensill to be jailed for five to seven years with a non-parole period of three to five years.
Mr Carr said this was higher than the appropriate range.
The mother of five will be remanded in custody and be sentenced by Judge Canon on August 10.
END QUOTE
10
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/father-of-four-jailed-for-having-sex-with-11-year-old-daughter/story-e6frf7jo-
1225879938544?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
QUOTE
Father of four jailed for having sex with 11-year-old daughter
AAP 15
From: AAP
June 15, 2010 1:51PM
A 33-YEAR-OLD single father of four has been sentenced to seven-and-a-half years' imprisonment for
having sex with his 11-year-old daughter.
The man, who cannot be named, committed the offences between December 2008 and June 20
2009, the County Court heard today.
The judge said the sexual assaults only came to light after the man had hit his four children with
a belt while trying to find out who had stolen three dollars from a change bowl.
The children had gone to school that morning upset over the beatings and a teacher had reported
it to police, who then discovered through interviewing the girl that she was an incest victim. 25
The judge said the man had only pleaded guilty halfway through the trial after his daughter had
gone through the trauma of giving evidence and where it had been alleged she had made the
whole thing up.
"Your level of insight makes it difficult to see that you are completely contrite,'' the judge said.
"The message must be sent to the community that if you sexually abuse children, harsh 30
punishment will follow.''
He said as sole carer, the father's role had been to protect his children.
The man pleaded guilty to one count of incest and one count of causing serious injury.
The judge sentenced him to seven-and-a-half years in jail with a minimum non-parole period of
five-and-a-half years. 35
The man will be registered as a sex offender for life.
END QUOTE

As with my special lifeline service MAY JUSTICVE ALWAYS PREVAIL I experienced
that by not being critical upon a person who was accused of offences, I achieved far more then so 40
to say try to be the moral police to this person.
I view it is better to get a person to decide for himself/herself that what was done was wrong , not
because of being told so but because they realise by themselves it was wrong. The crux of the so
to say healing process is to get the person to recognise what was done wrong. Just dictating this
to a person may so to say fall on deaf ears. 45
Indeed the person may expect this kind of conduct and you will never gain their trust, let alone
their ear, to get them to listen to reasoning. When however such a person trust you because you
are unlike what he/she expected not at all critical upon their wrong doing (as that after all is the
function of the courts to deal with and not for vigilantly style of response) then they are more
open to listen to what you are saying. In a case where a man had sexual abused his daughter but 50
saw nothing wrong in having done so, I spend months (FREE OF CHARGE) talking with him
but always avoiding to criticise him for what he had done, and then one day he suddenly dropped

40
p40 29-7-2014
A 1
st
it on me that what he had done to his daughter had been wrong as he had violated her rights, etc.
He made known that because the way I was it had made him thinking and he thanked me for not
having been on his back about it, as now he had himself come to conclusion he had acted
wrongly.
The same with a man who contemplated to kill his young son because he felt his mother was 5
living in an situation unacceptable to his religious views. While this is an extremely serious
situation where a childs life can be at risk, nevertheless I held it better not to form any criticism
upon his conduct. More than 10 years later, he made known that it was because of how I acted
towards him that made him wonder and it was then his decision he had no right to do so.
Most people feel they have the right to tell the truth and well can cause far more serious damage 10
in doing so.

If we disagree with the conduct of another person then we must be careful that we do not express
what we may see as the truth but in reality try to take over from the courts to hand down
JUSTICE. 15
.
QUOTE
Jim Snippet unavailable
To Zen H.Vanessa B.Sophie H. and 37 More...
24 Jun 2010 20
To Zen H.Vanessa B.Sophie H. and 37 More...
24 Jun 2010
I can hardly believe what I have read in this email. If the article is truthful then appalling
outrage does not even begin to describe my thoughts and feelings about this! I would
like to believe the majority of Muslim people do not believe in and support such terrible 25
child abuse. As for those who practice such pedophilia, life imprisonment should be
their punishment.

Jim
30

------ Forwarded Message ------
From: RicNiemela <ricniemela@earthlink.net>
To: Brian McDermott <governor@cqfreestate.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:23:09 -0400 35
Subject: Re: Lambs to the slaughter ....THIS IS BEYOND SCARY!!!!

FOR ALL

It appears that the Jews also have also adopted ludicrous views about women and 40
female children...In their stupid and idiotic Talmud we find these rules and laws:

Sanhedrin 54b: (p.371)... A jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less
than 9 years old!
45
Kethuboth 11b: (p. 58) When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is
nothing!

So we find both of these alien groups totally debased.....JRN

41
p41 29-7-2014
A 1
st

WHY IS THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGING MUSLIMS TO COME TO AUSTRALIA AND
ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THEIR OWN SCHOOLS, DRESS, MOSQUES AND CUSTOMS IN OUR
COUNTRY? WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO LIVE IN ENCLAVES, WITH NO HUMANISING
CONTACT FROM REAL AUSTRALIANS? 5

THE STORIES BELOW ARE TWO OF THE SADDEST SIGHTS YOU'LL EVER SEE. AS SAD AS THE
FIRST ONE IS, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THAT IT GOES ON. EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW,
BUT THE MEDIA DO NOT REPORT EVENTS SUCH AS THIS ONE.
10

1. Mass Muslim Marriage in Gaza

HAMAS PLAYS HOST TO PEDOPHILIA 15

Muhammed married a six year old bride. But Islam has evolved in 1500 years.
In Hamas land, in 2009, the brides are almost seven. 20

42
p42 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mass Muslim Marriage in Gaza

450 Grooms Wed GIRLS Under Ten In Gaza
by Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.
5
http://thelastcrusade.org/

A gala event has occurred in Gaza.

Hamas sponsored a mass wedding for four hundred and fifty couples. 10

Most of the grooms were in their mid to late twenties; most of brides were under
ten.

Muslim dignitaries including Mahmud Zahar, a leader of Hamas, were on hand to 15
congratulate the couples who took part in the carefully staged celebration.

We are saying to the world and to America that you cannot deny us joy and
happiness, Zahar told the grooms, all of whom were dressed in identical black suits
and hailed from the nearby Jabalia refugee camp. 20

Each groom received a gift of 500 dollars from Hamas.

The pre-pubescent girls, dressed in white gowns and adorned with garish make-up,
received bridal bouquets. 25

We are presenting this wedding as a gift to our people who stood firm in the face
of the siege and the war, local Hamas strongman Ibrahim Salaf said in a speech.

The wedding photos tell the rest of the sordid tale. 30

43
p43 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The International Center for Research on Women now estimates that there are 51
million child brides now living on planet earth and almost all in Muslim countries.

Twenty-nine percent of these child brides are regularly beaten and molested by
their husbands in Egypt; twenty six percent receive similar abuse in Jordan. 5

Every year, three million Muslim girls are subjected to genital mutilation,
according to UNICEF. This practice has now been outlawed in many parts of
America.
10
The Islamic practice of pedophilia dates back to the prophet Muhammad, who
amassed eleven wives and many concubines after the death of his first wife
Khadijah in 619 A.D.

15

After Muhammads elderly wife, Khadijah, died in 619 A.D., he amassed eleven
wives.
20
He arranged the visits to the tents of his women around their menstrual cycles. His
capacity for sexual congress seemed to be boundless.

Sahih Bukhari, one of the most revered Islamic texts, recounts: The Prophet used to
visit his wives in a round, during the day and night, and they were eleven in 25
number. I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We
used to say that the Prophet had the [sexual] stamina of thirty [men]." [1]

44
p44 29-7-2014
A 1
st
For in-between treats, the Prophet kept a stable of concubines, including Reihana,
his Jewish captive. His wives and mistresses were compelled by Islamic law to
satisfy his sexual needs at any time of the day or night, and the Prophet reserved
the right to enjoy them from the top of their heads to the bottom of their feet. [2]
5
This might not appear shocking to students of the Kinsey Report, except for the
case of Aisha, Muhammads favourite wife. Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr,
the Prophet's closest friend and most faithful follower. As soon as Muhammad laid
eyes on Aisha, he came to fantasize having sex with her. There was a problem with
this fantasy. 10

Aisha, at that time, was a small child of four or five, while Muhammad was a
middle-aged man of fifty. [3]

Still and all, the Prophet wasted no time in making his fantasy a reality. When 15
Aisha turned six, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr for his daughter's hand in marriage.
Abu Bakr thought that such a union would be improper - not because Aisha was a
mere child but rather because he considered himself Muhammads brother.

The Prophet quickly brushed aside this objection by saying that the union was 20
perfectly right in the eyes of Allah. Abu Bakr consented. And Muhammad took the
little girl as his new bride.

When they were married, Muhammad, in his mercy, permitted Aisha to take her
toys, including her dolls, to their new tent. [4] 25

The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine, and the Prophet fifty-three.
[5]

The three year waiting period was not caused by Muhammads concern of sexually 30
molesting a child but rather by the fact that Aisha contracted a skin disease which
caused her to lose her hair. [6]

45
p45 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Pedophilia was not only practiced by Muhammad but is also sanctioned by the
Quran.

In its discussion of the waiting period required to determine if a wife is pregnant 5
before divorce, the sacred text says if you are in doubt concerning those of your
wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three
months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated (65:4).

Those who think that modern Muslims have abandoned this teaching should study 10
the pictures that accompany this article and recall the words of Ayatollah
Khomeini, the most famous Islamic cleric of the 20th Century:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he
should not penetrate; sodomizing the child is OK. If a man penetrates and damages 15
the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl,
however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives.
The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister. . . It is better for a girl to
marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house
rather than her father's house. Any father marrying his daughter so young will 20
have a permanent place in heaven.[7] "

[1] Sahih Bukhari, 1:268, translated by M. Mushin Khan, Muslim Student
Association, The University of Southern California, 2001,
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ 25

[2] Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 525-526.

[3] Sahih Bukhari, 5: 235.
30
[4] Ibid., 8:151, 5:234

[5] Ibid, 5:62, 63.

[6] Ibid, 8:151. 35

[7] Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Tahrirolvasyleh, volume 4 (Gom, Iran: Darol Elm,
1990), p. 186.

40
2. Pictures from London.... this is beyond scary

This makes you wonder doesn't it? Can you imagine having a Christian
demonstration against Islam in downtown Baghdad? Or even, downtown
London? 45

46
p46 29-7-2014
A 1
st
View the pictures below and decide how you really feel about the future of the
Western World. These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS
OF LONDON during their 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'

5

47
p47 29-7-2014
A 1
st

5

48
p48 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Why would anyone think that we should be at war with such nice peaceful 5
Muslims?!

You need to forward this one to everyone! These pictures tell it all! Muslims
have stated that England will be the first country they take over!
10
Jim Snippet unavailable
To Bronwyn HancockNigel WBruce & Gail H. and 37 More...
24 Jun 2010
Thanks Nigel and Bronwyn for correcting my lack of research. I admit that I don't always
thoroughly check all the information I forward. I've got you guys for that. lol 15

Jim

----- Original Message ----- 20
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:51 PM

49
p49 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Subject: Re: Mass Muslim Marriage in Gaza... Lambs to the slaughter... very scary!!

It should have been obvious that this email was at best questionable.
There's a logo perpetuating the myth that the US, British and Australian Establishments are
somehow partners for freedom.
There's a link to a pro-crusades Catholic website.
The author of the piece is supposedly a PhD, but in a most unscholarly way has neglected to
provide references for this particular story.
Oh yeah - and there was the tired old clichs about the "evil Jews" and their "disgusting
Talmud". To learn more about what the Talmud is really about, see
<http://talmud.faithweb.com/> in particular <http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/three.html>

Even that crusader site has made a kinda-sorta retraction -
<http://thelastcrusade.org/2010/03/09/hamas-pedophilia-update/>
Hoax slayer - <http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mass-muslim-marriage.shtml>

I do have an interpretive difference to Bronwyn on why the "Illuminati" spread this sort of
disinfo.

The Globalists actually have a pro-Islamist agenda for now. The false flags like 9/11,3/11 and
7/7 are designed to aid the Globalists' Jihad. That's why there's a major mosque and Islamic
centre planned for Ground Zero in New York, and why the memorial at the site of the alleged
crashing of Flight93 has been designed as a giant outdoor Islamic shrine pointing to Mecca, and
why Jihadist maniacs are permitted by Western authorities to march through the streets of
European cities. The Islamisation taking place in the West isn't even being carried out primarily
by Muslims! It's being implemented by our own elites.

There's plenty of real information on the crimes of Hamas (and the infinitely worse Fatah) - we
don't need to spread lies about them. Here's a video I made over a year ago about this sort of
thing - < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyY0oyaVGhg>

Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Mass Muslim Marriage in Gaza... Lambs to the slaughter... very scary!!

Dear Jim,

It is very important when you get emails like this, which are likely to stir up hostility, to
check the facts before you pass them on, because time and time again, they are false or
misleading.

I know that in your particular case you didn't automatically accept it absolutely 100% to
be true, but you accepted it enough to start reacting to it as if it were true. Surely you
would agree that it is better to do a quick check before you start reacting as you have
done, and worse, passing it on?

It is SO easy to do a check - just pick a few key words that identify the story, type them

50
p50 29-7-2014
A 1
st
into the Google search field, and add the word "snopes" and/or "hoax slayer" on the
end of the group, do the search, and viola, a site with the answer will most likely come
up on the first page, probably first in the list. (In this case, I typed in "Mass Muslim
Marriage in Gaza snopes hoaxslayer").

Isn't there already enough unnecessary hostility in the world based largely on a poor
understanding of each other's cultures and religions as it is?

The Illuminati powers-that-be want to create division and use Muslims as scapegoats for
their own crimes (e.g. 9/11), a popular ploy that has been used right throughout history
by those seeking power. I think they are successful enough at this evil manipulation of
the masses as it is. Do you really need to help them?

If you don't want to help those evil forces that are causing so much suffering on this
planet (and want to do things which will cause even more) then please pass a comment
like this one back to whoever send you these types of emails and ask them to do
likewise, since evil prevails when the good do nothing. (I've received this particular one
before also indirectly from the same sources: Brian McDermott who received it from Ric
Niemela, as a result of which I have already passed them this comment, so it is not
necessary for you to do so in this particular case.)

Regards,
Bronwyn

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim
Subject: Mass Muslim Marriage in Gaza... Lambs to the slaughter... very scary!! 5

I can hardly believe what I have read in this email. If the article is truthful then appalling
outrage does not even begin to describe my thoughts and feelings about this! I would
like to believe the majority of Muslim people do not believe in and support such terrible
child abuse. As for those who practice such pedophilia, life imprisonment should be 10
their punishment.

Jim

15
------ Forwarded Message ------
From: RicNiemela <ricniemela@earthlink.net>
To: Brian McDermott <governor@cqfreestate.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:23:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Lambs to the slaughter ....THIS IS BEYOND SCARY!!!! 20

END QUOTE

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mass-muslim-marriage.shtml
QUOTE 25
Detailed Analysis

51
p51 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Messages like the example
included above are currently
circulating via email and have
also been posted to a great
many blogs, online forums and 5
social networks around the
world, where they have
generated a flood of often
vitriolic anti-Islamic sentiment
and very heated debate. The 10
messages claim that hundreds
of pre-pubescent girls were
forced to marry adult grooms in
a recent mass wedding
ceremony in Gaza organized by 15
Palestinian Islamic organization,
Hamas. According to the
messages, 450 brides, most of
whom were under ten years old,
were married to 450 grooms 20
most of whom were in their mid
to late twenties. The messages
accuse Hamas of actively and willfully promoting pedophilia and condemn the act as
"bizarre & shameful".
25
Support for these claims is centered around several photographs supposedly showing
tiny "brides" dressed all in white and holding the hands of their much taller, grown-up
"grooms". However, while a mass wedding did indeed take place in Gaza in July 2009,
the claim that the photographed children were actually the brides in the ceremony is
untrue. These photographs represent virtually the entire "body of evidence" that 30
supports the claims in these indignant protest messages. However, this supposed
photographic "evidence" is in fact meaningless because they do not actually depict child
brides at all. Instead, they show young family members of either the bride or the groom.
At such Muslim wedding ceremonies, it is a tradition for young girls to dress up and play
a role in the celebrations in a way similar to how flower girls are used in Western 35
wedding ceremonies. Although these young girls do look like little brides, they are
certainly not the ones getting married.

Hamas has vehemently denied that any children were married at the event. In fact, a
Hamas official told WorldNetDaily that the youngest girl married at the ceremony was 16 40
years old while most were over 18 years of age.

These scurrilous and inflammatory reports began circulating soon after the Hamas
sponsored mass-wedding took place. A 30 July 2009 AFP news article notes:
Nearly a thousand Palestinians celebrated marriage on Thursday night in a ceremony 45
organized by Hamas in the north of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas dignitaries including Mahmud Zahar, one of the militant group's top leaders,
were on hand to congratulate 450 grooms who took part in the carefully stage-managed
event. 50
iStockphoto.com/Mr_Khan

Claims that 450 pre-pubescent girls were married
in a mass wedding sponsored by Hamas are
untrue

52
p52 29-7-2014
A 1
st

"We are saying to the world and to America that you cannot deny us joy and
happiness," Zahar told the men, all of whom were dressed in identical black suits and
hailed from the nearby Jabalia refugee camp.
5
Each groom received a present of $500 from Hamas, which said its workers had also
contributed five per cent of their monthly salaries to add to the wedding gift.
Much has been made of the fact that no photographs of the real brides have made it
into news reports about the event. This seeming omission has been seized upon by
many commentators as more evidence that the children in the photographs really are 10
the brides in spite of denials by Hamas and others. However, the absence of the brides
is in fact just a reflection of how Muslim public ceremonies are conducted. News reports
indicate that "the 450 brides shared none of the glamour, taking seats among the
audience" while their grooms actively participated in event ceremonies. And a SkyNews
video report about the mass wedding notes in reference to the brides that "The women 15
are elsewhere". Tim Marshall, the journalist who presented the SkyNews video, was
actually there at the mass wedding ceremony. In a blog post about his attendance,
Marshall reiterates that the brides were elsewhere, noting that some of them were
among the guests. He also writes:
The men and women are sitting, Most ignore the speeches, some even ignore the 20
prayers. Then the fireworks explode, the cheering begins, and in march the Hamas
scouts, bashing drums, looking every inch the future Hamas fighters many will be. Then
the grooms, aged about 18 to about 28. They are holding hands with their young nieces
and cousins, little girls aged from about 3 to 8, made up to the nines, wearing white
wedding dresses. 25

Up they all go to the stage, the cheering and music grows ever louder. The girls were
having the time of their lives, but, getting a little bored after a while, came down off the
stage to dance with each other and play games.
30
Our report on this put it into context saying that it took place just a mile from the Israeli
border and was a message from Hamas about its strength confidence and future
fighters. Oh and that the brides were elsewhere. Pretty straightforward. It never struck
me for a moment that the little girls might later be described in the bloggersphere as the
brides! How naive I am. 35
Moreover, the 2009 mass-wedding is not at all unprecedented. An October 2008 New
York Times article reporting on a Hamas sponsored mass wedding held in that year,
notes that it was the tenth such event held in Gaza. The article also mirrors reports
about the 2009 event, noting:
The 300 grooms were dressed in black pants, white shirts and colorful ties but no 40
jackets, because of recent budget cuts. The brides, sitting separately among the
women, wore head scarves and black robes over their evening dresses but were easily
spotted by their heavy makeup. The couples had all signed marriage contracts before
the event.
Ironically, reports about the 2008 event also featured photographs of young girls clad in 45
white bride-like dresses. The New York Times article shows such youngsters dancing in
front of the grooms. Apparently, the poison-pen denizens of the blogosphere saw no
reason to conclude that the children in photographs of the 2008 mass wedding were
actually the brides, so one wonders why they have so rabidly done so in 2009.
50

53
p53 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Perhaps the 2009 images are a little more compelling and it is, I suppose, at least
possible that whoever first perpetrated these inflammatory falsehoods did so out of
genuine misunderstanding. What is less forgivable - "bizarre & shameful" even - is that
many hundreds of bloggers have gleefully perpetrated such errant nonsense in their
publications without taking the few minutes required to check the veracity of its claims. 5
While free speech is (or should be) a fundamental human right, perhaps even home-
based citizen journalists should take at least some responsibility in ensuring that the
information they publish is factual and accurate.

References 10
Hamas sponsors mass wedding in Gaza
Hamas denies holding mass kiddie marriage
Temporary Joy From Misery Of Life In Gaza
For War Widows, Hamas Recruits Army of Husbands
Islamophobia. Ignorance Or Propaganda? 15
Last updated: 9th March 2011
First published: 5th December 2009
Article written by Brett M. Christensen
About Brett Christensen and Hoax-Slayer
20
Similar Article:
Islamic Punishment Protest Email - Photos of Boy's Arm Being Crushed Under Car Wheel
END QUOTE

My first reaction to seeing the pictures portraying little girls as brides (and not as bride maids) 25
was:
WHEN I SEE THE HORRIBLE PICTURES OF MASS CHILD BRIDES, LITTLE GIRLS
AT THE HANDS OF ADULT MEN, THOSE LITTLE KIDDIES NOT KNOWING
WHAT THEY ARE HEADING FOR, THEN SURELY IT MAY DEPLORABLE TO ME
BUT IT ISNT GOING TO RESOLVE ANYTHING. 30

Then again we also have the following story:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7040684/yemeni-child-bride-dies-of-bleeding-after-
intercourse 35
QUOTE
Yemeni child bride dies of bleeding
after intercourse

AFP April 9, 2010, 11:00 am 40
A 13-year-old Yemeni girl who was forced into marriage died five days after her
wedding when she suffered a rupture in her sex organs and hemorrhaging, a
local rights organisation says.
Ilham Mahdi al Assi died last Friday in a hospital in Yemen's Hajja province, the
Shaqaeq Arab Forum for Human Rights said, quoting a medical report. 45

54
p54 29-7-2014
A 1
st
She was married the previous Monday in a traditional arrangement known as a
"swap marriage", in which the brother of the bride also married the sister of the
groom, it said.
"The child Ilham has died as a martyr due to the abuse of children's lives in
Yemen," the non-governmental organisation said. 5
Her death was a "flagrant example" of the results of opposing the ban on child
marriage in Yemen, which was leading to "killing child females", it said.
The marriage of young girls is widespread in Yemen, which has a strong tribal
structure.
The death of a 12-year-old girl in childbirth in September illustrated the case of 10
the country's "brides of death", many of whom were married off even before
puberty.
Controversy heightened in Yemen recently over a law banning child marriage in
the impoverished country through setting a minimum age of 17 for women and 18
for men. 15
Thousands of conservative women demonstrated outside parliament last month,
answering a call by Islamist parties opposing the law.
A lesser number of women rallied at the same venue a few days later in support
of the law, the implementation of which was blocked pending a request by a
group of politicians for a review. 20
END QUOTE

What we need is to work with foreign countries to try to get them to see it from our views that
children should be left to enjoy the journey to adulthood in a pleasant way and respect their right 25
as a child to enjoy this for as long as possible.
When we are faced with so called evidence that later turned out to be a scam/deception, etc,
than we must be on our guard to try to be on the safe side.

We also have to consider the following: 30
QUOTE
Woman executed over child prostitution
AAP December 14, 2009, 4:49 pm
A woman in southwest China has been executed after being convicted of forcing 22 school children into prostitution. 35

Zhao Qingmei was put to death in Guizhou province "in recent days" after her final appeal was rejected, the Guizhou
Daily reported on Monday.

Zhao was convicted with six others of forcing the 22 pupils, some of whom may have been as young as six, and an 40
older girl into prostitution in the impoverished mountainous province from March to June 2006, the paper said.

Zhao was also convicted of aiding her husband in the rape of a child, it added.

The report said the other defendants, including Zhao's husband, were given sentences ranging from jail time, 45
including life sentences, to death with a two-year reprieve, a punishment normally commuted to life in prison.

China annually executes more people than the rest of the world combined, last year putting to death more than 1,700
people out of a global total of almost 2,400, according to Amnesty International.

55
p55 29-7-2014
A 1
st

As China does not publish full data on death sentences, rights groups say the numbers of people executed could be
far higher.
END QUOTE
5
Ok, this is not particularly the kind of conduct that I would support, not even against offenders, as after all we are
supposed to be and remain to be a civil society.

Husband falsely accused of child rape wins $1.2 million from ex-spouse
QUOTE 10
From:

To:

Cc:
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:56 pm
Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Husband falsely accused of child rape wins $1.2 million from ex-spouse
Attachments: Text version of this message. (5KB)

Images are not displayed.
Husband falsely accused of child rape wins $1.2 million from ex-spouse
By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer
POSTED: 12:50 p.m. EDT, Aug 21, 2009
The flier went out to neighbors in bold letters: CHILD RAPIST.
The text contained the name and address of the accused with more bold words: BE ALERT! PROTECT YOUR
CHILDREN.
Rodd Sutton, formerly of Akron, was the target of the flier. It was another part of his contentious custody dispute
that began more than 10 years ago with his ex-wife, Victoria Douglas.
Police and Summit County Children Services investigated the rape complaint in 2004, when Douglas alleged her
husband had inappropriate contact with their daughter, now 10.
Authorities found the charges untrue, but that didn't stop the ex-wife from passing out the fliers to neighbors.
The husband, 46, then went on the offensive, suing his ex-wife and her mother.
A Summit County jury this month sided with Sutton, awarding him more than $1.2 million in damages for
defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sutton's attorneys, Tim Hanna and James Campbell, said collecting the settlement might be an issue, but the case
is about more than money, they said.

56
p56 29-7-2014
A 1
st
''Maybe it's not about the issue of collecting,'' Campbell said. ''Maybe it's about the principal of vindicating this
guy and showing you can stand up for what you believe in.''
Neither Douglas nor her attorney, Larry Shenise, were available for comment.
Paper consumes the dockets of the ex-couple's divorce and civil lawsuits with hundreds of entries and countless
reams of motions filled with allegations of child abuse and drug use, as well as contempt of court findings against
each side over visitation and other issues.
The case took a more public turn when Sutton sued over the fliers distributed to neighbors. It happened after
complaints of sexual abuse lodged against the husband by the ex-wife in 2004.
Douglas, 44, made the allegations to Akron and Springfield police, Akron Children's Hospital and Children
Services.
Each agency found no evidence of abuse.
Sutton's attorneys contend Douglas transferred a house in Lakemore from her name to her mother, Rosemary
Douglas, to save it from possible loss in the defamation lawsuit.
A jury awarded Sutton $136,000 from his former mother-in-law for the property transaction. Victoria Douglas
now resides in Florida with her daughter.
The case was heard by a jury and Judge Alison McCarty.
Campbell said the only question asked by jurors was whether they could give Sutton more money than he was
seeking.
The flier went out to neighbors in bold letters: CHILD RAPIST.
The text contained the name and address of the accused with more bold words: BE ALERT! PROTECT YOUR
CHILDREN.
Rodd Sutton, formerly of Akron, was the target of the flier. It was another part of his contentious custody dispute
that began more than 10 years ago with his ex-wife, Victoria Douglas.
Police and Summit County Children Services investigated the rape complaint in 2004, when Douglas alleged her
husband had inappropriate contact with their daughter, now 10.
Authorities found the charges untrue, but that didn't stop the ex-wife from passing out the fliers to neighbors.
The husband, 46, then went on the offensive, suing his ex-wife and her mother.
A Summit County jury this month sided with Sutton, awarding him more than $1.2 million in damages for
defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sutton's attorneys, Tim Hanna and James Campbell, said collecting the settlement might be an issue, but the case
is about more than money, they said.
''Maybe it's not about the issue of collecting,'' Campbell said. ''Maybe it's about the principal of vindicating this
guy and showing you can stand up for what you believe in.''
Neither Douglas nor her attorney, Larry Shenise, were available for comment.
Paper consumes the dockets of the ex-couple's divorce and civil lawsuits with hundreds of entries and countless
reams of motions filled with allegations of child abuse and drug use, as well as contempt of court findings against
each side over visitation and other issues.
The case took a more public turn when Sutton sued over the fliers distributed to neighbors. It happened after
complaints of sexual abuse lodged against the husband by the ex-wife in 2004.
Douglas, 44, made the allegations to Akron and Springfield police, Akron Children's Hospital and Children

57
p57 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Services.
Each agency found no evidence of abuse.
Sutton's attorneys contend Douglas transferred a house in Lakemore from her name to her mother, Rosemary
Douglas, to save it from possible loss in the defamation lawsuit.
A jury awarded Sutton $136,000 from his former mother-in-law for the property transaction. Victoria Douglas
now resides in Florida with her daughter.
The case was heard by a jury and Judge Alison McCarty.
Campbell said the only question asked by jurors was whether they could give Sutton more money than he was
seeking.
Ray Lautenschlager
PACE Akron
The keeper of the penny
#3
"Success is more permanent when you achieve it without
destroying your principles". - Walter Cronkite
We are continually faced with a series of great opportunities
brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems.
- John W. Gardner
www.pacegroup.org
www.raylautenschlager.com
http://www.pace-akron.net
http://tagged.com/raylautenschlager
Home: 330-907-0664
END QUOTE

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dumped-girlfriend-faked-rape-injuries/story-e6frf7jo-
1226257012718?from=public_rss
QUOTE 5
Dumped girlfriend faked rape injuries

Warren Clark was locked up for 10 hours following his ex-girlfriend's false claim that he assaulted her. Source:
Northern Territory News
A SCORNED ex-girlfriend fashioned dark make-up to fake her own rape and beating after being dumped by 10
her sailor boyfriend.
Former Royal Australian Navy Able Seaman Warren Clark, 28, pleaded guilty in Darwin Magistrates Court to
possessing 0.2g of cannabis and a Taser.
He escaped conviction and was fined $300, The Northern Territory News reports.
But his lawyer Robert Welfare told magistrate Michael Carey police only found the weapon and drugs because of a 15
search warrant that was executed in relation to an allegation of rape.

58
p58 29-7-2014
A 1
st
"(His ex-girlfriend) put make-up on her eye and went to police and told them she had been raped and bashed," he
said.
"Police found this was a complete fabrication."
Outside court, Mr Clark said he broke-up with his girlfriend Kira Lee Gould, 22, and asked her to move out of his
house in February last year. 5
But he said he was arrested for serious sexual offences on the naval base and put in a paddy wagon in front of his
colleagues the next morning.
"I was locked up for 10 hours," he said.
"She alleged I sexually assaulted her, that I held her against her will and that I had a wad of cash and weapons."
Mr Clark, whose family has been in the navy for four generations, said it was "unjust" that he had to face criminal 10
charges because of a search warrant that was executed on a false statement.
He added that Ms Gould had not (to date) been charged with making a false report to police.
"It's a pretty weird and twisted web that I got myself into," he said.
Mr Clark, who was deployed in Southeast Asia for six months, said the false allegations "contributed" to his loss of
employment in the navy. 15
Mr Welfare told the court the cannabis was for personal use and the Taser was given to his client as a prank.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 20
Man wrongly jailed for rape walks
free
By Melissa Iaria and Catherine Best, AAP December 7, 2009, 6:00 pm

He spent 16 months in jail for a rape he didn't commit. 25

But Melbourne man Farah Jama, 22, always believed the truth would prevail.

"I know that the truth always will come out. Everybody will see that I am innocent," he told reporters after Victoria's
Court of Appeal quashed his conviction on Monday. 30

Jama was convicted last year on DNA evidence for allegedly raping a 48-year-old woman who was found semi-
conscious in a toilet cubicle at an over 28's nightclub.

He maintained his innocence, saying he was at his critically ill father's bedside reciting prayers when the rape was 35
said to have occurred.

The woman could not remember the crime.

Jama was jailed for six years but served 16 months before the Court of Appeal acquitted him and set his sentence 40
aside after a bungling of DNA evidence linking him to the crime.

The court heard Jama's DNA was analysed at the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre for an unrelated matter
for which he was never charged.
45
A day later, the same scientist who analysed his DNA also analysed the rape complainant's DNA.

59
p59 29-7-2014
A 1
st

The crown conceded the DNA evidence may have been contaminated and there may not have even been a crime.

Jama's lawyer Kimani Adil Boden hailed it a momentous day in a tragic case.
5
"Justice has finally been done, however, at a price," he told reporters at his inner Melbourne law firm.

Mr Boden said DNA evidence was powerful but juries needed to be told that mistakes could happen.

He said Jama was traumatised by his ordeal and was considering making a compensation claim. 10

Jama described his experience as "very, very bad".

"I feel really depressed and cannot imagine it, what happened," he said.
15
"I feel really angry and depressed."

He said his family supported him throughout his ordeal and he planned to celebrate his victory.

He also thanked his lawyer for having faith in him and said he would try and start his life afresh. 20

The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine is urgently reviewing the case.

Victoria Police has welcomed the review, saying in a statement it is an "unfortunate one-off event and we do not
believe this has happened elsewhere". 25

Last year, police were forced to drop charges against a man accused of the 1984 double murder of a mother and
daughter when DNA evidence was found to be worthless.

Jama was bailed last month pending investigations into the possible bungling of his case. 30

Opposition police spokesman Peter Ryan described the case as an "appalling state of affairs" and called into question
the reliability of DNA evidence used in the courts.

"Events surrounding Mr Jama are a stain upon the justice system in Victoria," he told reporters. 35

"The fear is, of course, that in the court system we have evidence being called which is not properly based, now this
goes to the very core of our justice system."

Mr Ryan blamed under-resourcing and said the blunder would lead to more challenges against criminal convictions. 40

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, QC, has ordered a review of all cases over the past five years
following doubts about the reliability of DNA tests.

The Jama acquittal comes as the Victorian ombudsman is due to report to state parliament this week on major 45
malpractice at a police forensic laboratory.
END QUOTE

And after having considered the above then we also have so to say at the other end of the
spectrum 50

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/local/6540041/woman-in-compo-battle-over-500-rapes/
QUOTE
Woman in compo battle over 500 rapes
55
By Margaret Scheikowski, AAP December 2, 2009, 2:02 pm

60
p60 29-7-2014
A 1
st
A NSW woman who was raped about 500 times from the age of five to 16 when in foster care has won the latest
round of her battle for appropriate compensation.

In the NSW Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Rothman concluded that the Victims Compensation
Tribunal made an error of law in its October 2008 determination. 5

The tribunal had ruled she was eligible for compensation on the basis of "one act of violence", meaning she was only
entitled to one award, whereas she had made seven compensation claims.

Justice Rothman noted that although approximately 500 rapes were perpetrated, the woman did not claim 500 10
awards of compensation.

She had instead made seven claims which referred to acts which occurred at various locations and when the woman
was different ages, the first relating to being raped when five.
15
That was her age when she was placed in foster care in 1974 for 10 years, during which time she was sexually
assaulted, on average, once a week, the judge said.

"The offender, who perpetrated these rapes, was the son-in-law of her foster parents and worked at the premises in
which she was placed," he said. 20

The offender was later convicted of three counts of sexual assault and acquitted of two other charges.

In sending the matter back to the tribunal, Justice Rothman said had he not found "an error in law" but the result of
the tribunal finding could be described as "wholly irrational and capricious". 25

The 2008 ruling followed an earlier decision of the tribunal being quashed in the NSW District Court.

After the one act of violence ruling, the woman sought a "judicial review" in the Supreme Court.
30
Under the relevant legislation, a person is disentitled from receiving more than one award of statutory compensation
in respect of the same act of violence.

"It is difficult to discern the reasons that the tribunal was satisfied that the acts specified were all related," the judge
said. 35

But it seemed it came to the view that because the acts were committed against the same victim, by the same
offender, and arose out of the same association, the acts were related.

He concluded that approach "discloses error" in that it did not appear to have regard to the changing circumstances 40
of the victim, in terms of age, location and the nature of the offences.

Had an error of law not been found, the judge said a result that "concluded that a rape of a person at the age of five
and a rape of a person at the age of 15, even if perpetrated by the same the same person in the same place, were
related acts of violence is wholly irrational and capricious". 45

The judge quashed the 2008 decision before ordering the case be sent back to the Victims Compensation Tribunal
"to be heard in accordance with law".

According to the NSW Victims Services website, if someone has been injured by an act of violence, they may be 50
eligible for award of compensation between $7,500 and $50,000.
END QUOTE

As I referred to in previous correspondence the following from the Bible
QUOTE 55
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including
women and children. This is what you are to do, they said. Completely destroy all the males and every
woman who is not a virgin. Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins
who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan .

61
p61 29-7-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But
Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. Why have you let 5
all the women live? he demanded. These are the very ones who followed Balaams advice and caused
the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor . They are the ones who caused the plague
to strike the LORDs people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the
young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
END QUOTE 10

Their age of consent was not what we have as a society in Australia. In many countries the
moment a girl has a menstruation she is deemed to be so to say fair game as after all to
them it means she became a woman.
To them there is no pedophilia issue, as to them that is what marriages is about. 15
To others therefore whatever we may find abhorrent, such as underage sex we may hold to be
statutory rape, bestiality or even what we refer to as grooming of children via the internet or
otherwise, is to them a normal societies conduct and morals.
We have government seeking to become multicultural and seek to identify with Asia, etc, but
reality is that we are a so called Western society that generally has different values then those say 20
in the Middle East.
But as set out above the act of homosexuality was abhorrent to the Spanish when they
travelled to the Americas and even held that having people involved in homosexuality to be
torn apart by dogs somehow was not that gruesome.
We have an army of experts all over the world which each will set their interpretation what 25
the person practicing any or all of rape, bestiality, pedophilia, homosexuality, etc will suffer
or not suffer about.
There really can be nothing wrong in a person falling in love or otherwise having an
affection towards another person (whatever its age) or even to an animal or as some like it
to an item as long as they remain to act within societies acceptable standards. As such, if it 30
remains just by love and not engage in unlawful conduct to pursue their love interest then
no harm can be done.

QUOTE 35
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the free
exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise be strictly
prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and another is the
"churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the devotees who offer 40
themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites of their
religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing character or 45
contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 50
Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?

62
p62 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community is any reason for
us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian persecution-any fear that there will be
any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole of the advancement in
English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has shown a less and less inclination to
pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances, or to maintain any religion. We have not 5
done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all these colonies; we have wiped out every religious
test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a Parliament which will be at least as enlightened as the
Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various states; therefore, what is the practical fear against which we
are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-
probability or possibility, taking into consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly 10
going on of any of these various communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the honorable
member. If we, in these communities in which we live, have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods
which were practised under a different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and
advancement; if, as this progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between
Church and State becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the 15
methods of former days with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the
Commonwealth of Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be
administered with as much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in
respect of the Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any one of the states. Now, we
have shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a 20
provision that might be held to be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various religions
which are believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other races, which
practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any civilized community;
and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of legislation in regard to immigration and
emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the making of special laws for any 25
race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we have all these provisions under which
it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its regulative power, should prevent any
practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of humanity and justice of the community; and
inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be
prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision 30
which would take out [start page 1772] of their hands the power of preventing any such practices.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill?
Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent anything that
may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states. 35
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Then all crimes should be left to the Commonwealth? 40
Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the
Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the
moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in
the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not defeat that
regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all, however, to any power of 45
regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to the Commonwealth,
whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we
should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to use by
way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the
first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expected- 50
Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.
END QUOTE

Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
QUOTE 55

63
p63 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Thus says the Lord: I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while
you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You
have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel , and with the sun
looking down.
Then David said to Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. Nathan answered David: The Lord on 5
his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed,
the child born to you must surely die.
END QUOTE

We must not accept that whatever is claimed to be a religious practice and/or customs somehow 10
then can override Australian moral codes and laws.

QUOTE
Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and 15
indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the theatres
and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what we can to provide
against it.
END QUOTE
20
As I published in:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation
A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)
25
QUOTE
Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED
* Gary, what is your view about McHughs statement ?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, how can anyone put the Court in disrepute when you have such idiotic statement 30
of a judge. Well, I have put my bit on the Internet about it.
In my view considering that statement the parliament should have moved to have him removed from the bench as
soon as he made that statement.
If this is the kind of mentality and intelligence that we can expect from judges of the High Court of Australia then I
think we might as well appoint one of my grandchildren to the bench and at least they be rather playing with toys 35
and crayons and say nothing sensible then the utter rubbish that we now had. And this kind of intelligence, or the
lack thereof, is used to deal with constitutional matters, no wonder wee are going downhill!

index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635
QUOTE 070520 posting 40
I am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;

QUOTE
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta
and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. 45
END QUOTE

QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is
said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. 50
END QUOTE

As a "constitutionalist" (not some lawyer who is brainwashed) I condemn any one, in particularly judges, to
undermine the constitutional system that exist in the POLITICAL UNION BEING THE Commonwealth of
Australia. 55

The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is created by Statue and itself has no common
law. Hence, any jury that were to be involved in federal hearings must be drawn from a State.

As author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI books in regard of constitutional and other matters I have set out 60
extensively how I succeeded and defeated Federal Government lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all

64
p64 29-7-2014
A 1
st
constitutional issues I raised!

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was an act to create a "APOLITICAL UNION"
and the States who partly federated retaining all legislative powers regarding "CIVIL RIGHTS" as it was their
constitutions that were based upon the provisions of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas corpus, etc. 5

In the Commonwealth of Australia, judges are appointed to the High Court of Australia regardless lacking
any competence in constitutional matters, in fact they may never have practiced in constitutional matters, and
in one incident a judge actually refused to hand down a judgment other then to state he didn't have any
knowledge in the constitutional matter before the court and for this would abstain from handing down a 10
judgment.

You find it as a matter of record that where the Governor-General was Defendant in a case before the High
Court of Australia then all 7 judges subsequently fraternised with the governor-General, and no one has to be
surprised the Court subsequently refused to allow the case to be heard upon its MERITS. 15

In the Commonwealth of Australia judges are purportedly appointed by the Governor-General but he merely
appoints those who the Government provides to be appointed. Hence a political stacking occurs.

The High Court of Australia in 1996 using their powers as a "persona designata" to make decisions for the 20
parliament, approved of the entire constitution to be replaced by the Australia act 1986 (forget about it being
constitutionally valid) so that there no longer is a "constitutional Parliament" but the parliament now is above
the constitution. As it now legislated the (purported) constitution.

But, I successfully challenged this validity of this De Facto Constitution in Court. 25

Having myself served in the NATO at the then IRON CURAIN having been trained as a sharpshooter, I
personally deplore the usage of weapons, as I am trained to use it to kill. However, I recognise the right of
others to bear arms, for defending their rights, and even the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) indicated
that militia could be drawn from civilians of a State after the federation was created. This to me implied that 30
the commonwealth of Australia would have been able to enlist armed civilians to serve at that time to protect
the shores of the Commonwealth of Australia until it could set up its own defence force.

There are always terrible incidents involving firearms that stand out. Likewise there are also terrible incidents
where motor vehicles are standing out in having resulted to mass killings. 35

Personally, I would prefer not a single person to have a firearm, but then I have to recognise that others may
desire that everyone should have a weapon to defend himself/herself.

My wife, opposed me to even fit a knife sharpers on the kitchen wall, but wanted me to hide it in a pantry, as 40
she fears that someone might come in the residence and see the knives and use it wrongly.

Surely, we are not going to ban all knives in the world?

When anyone desires to exercise a right then the person must also accept there are obligations. 45

Hence regulations as to the storage, handling and usage of a firearm should be deemed to be appropriate
where it provides for what is locally required.

Therefore, while a person may have the right to own a firearm, the Parliament rightfully could legislate to 50
have the usage, carrying, etc made subject to conditions.

Where there is a constitutional right, implied or otherwise, that a person may bear arms to defend himself then
I view one cannot limit the usage of a weapon to be some small handgun, a tank, or a warplane, as depending
what your personal conditions are you may need one or another, without having any intention to use it against 55
other civilians.

The Supreme Court (USA) has extensively decided cases regarding infringements of RELIGION and I for
one admire the Courts numerous judgments I read. If the same kind of logic was used regarding the right to
bear arms, then I view likewise both parliamentarians and civilians should accept this kind of reasoning. 60

I for one do not desire to use a weapon, do not like them being used, but that are my personal views, and I
recognise others have total opposite views. They have their right on their opinion as much as I have and as
such I view that the concentration should not be as to how to make inroads to the rights of others, but rather

65
p65 29-7-2014
A 1
st
how can we facilitate the rights of others without that our own rights (including that of personal safety, as not
to be held up by some crazy gunman) jeopardised needlessly.

In particular those of the law enforcement who are risking their lives daily to protect innocent citizens of harm
they must not unduly be jeopardised in their law enforcement positions because inappropriate regulations 5
allow anyone to obtain a weapon.

While many people argue about the right of freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, few do actually
concentrate on the issue of right of freedom of travel, even so this likewise was protected by old English law.
10
Not to many people argue that their right to travel is denied where they must first have a driving licence to
drive a motor vehicle, where as no kind of driving licence existed to drive a cart-and-wagon. As such,
somehow we have accepted inroads to our guaranteed freedoms because society allowed for this where as in
regard of weapons we may have different positions pending the local society we reside in.
15
In my view, the right to legislate that a person should not be allowed to bear arms cannot be justified on a
court decision, as if the freedom to bear arms is guaranteed then I view not a court in the land could possible
make an order contrary to it.

We therefore may have to look at the constitutional framework as to what was existing at the time each 20
constitution was created and if the conditions then existed that a Court could actually have denied a person to
bear arms. If in history it can be shown that certain persons were denied by the local authorities to bear arms,
then it must be accepted that the Constitution albeit if it provides for the right to bear arms then was created
upon the understanding that such implied freedom was at all times deemed to be subject to court judicial
decisions and or legislative powers. 25

As a "constitutionalist" I find it laughable how judges, despite their extensive legal training, can come up with
such utter and sheer nonsense such as McHugh J did with his statement ;

QUOTE 30

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said,
some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE
35
As no such constitutional system operates that would allow the parliament to enact such laws.

And there I have to come back upon the other quotation;

QUOTE 40
McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta
and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.
END QUOTE

Lawyers are being trained in legal studies by other lawyers and as such are brainwashed far to often that some 45
LEGAL FICTION is FLEGAL REALITY>

As I exposed in my book published on 30 September 2003

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP 50

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN 0-9580569-6-X (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0
55
There is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare "citizenship" as
Australians are constitutionally "subjects of the British Crown". Citizenship is a "POLITICAL POSITION"
of rights, including franchise, and has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" yet the High Court of
Australia goes on as if it is a nationality.
60
In court, on 19 July 2006, I defeated the Federal Government lawyers also on this matter.

Hence, having has a legal study and having obtained law degrees in itself will not prove you are not
brainwashed by LEGAL FICTION but more then likely you are.

66
p66 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Hence, the work as a constitutionalist is to expose this.

Only when we are dealing with LEGAL REALITY and have appropriately explored the constitutional basis
upon which constitutional rights, implied or otherwise, were provided for in the constitution can we 5
commence to address the issues such as the right to bear arms, etc.

And to make clear, no Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any legislative powers to allow the
killing of blue-eyed babies or for such kind of nonsense, as none of the State constitutions could allow for
such legislative nonsense as they are all bound to make laws for "the peace, order, and good government", 10
even so judges likewise fails to recognise this constitutional limitation.

As the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear the Constitution was the "new Magna Carta".
END QUOTE 070520 posting
15
The danger is that if some fanatical religion were to come to power in Australia it could in fact rely upon these and
other stupid and irresponsible statements of the High Court of Australia and turn this Commonwealth of Australia
into some murderous regime, to pursue ethnic cleansing and fund their religious schools at taxpayers expenses.
Whatever may suit to today for the so-called Judeo-Christians may tomorrow suit a other fanatical religion to
achieve precisely the opposite! This is what we should keep in mind, and why the Framers of the Constitution so 20
much sought to prevent this kind of religious war to exist in the Commonwealth of Australia.
END QUOTE

When a judicial officer makes a statement such as that Parliament can legislate to have every
blue eyed baby killed then what kind of judges do we have appointed? Certainly not one that I 25
view understands and is competent in interpreting the true meaning and application of the
constitution.
.
QUOTE
But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some 30
authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE

QUOTE with example of text amendment
authorities could legislate to have every politician killed if it wanted to.
END QUOTE with example of text amendment

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it like. As it is said, some 40
authorities could legislate to have every Aboriginal killed if it wanted to.

authorities could legislate to have every judge killed if it wanted to.

And let us be clear about this the federal government itself proved to engage a barrister who was
in my view deceiving the court with substitution words of a judgment he claimed to be quoting 50
just as to win the case for the Federal Government:
For the record, after a 5 year epic legal battle I comprehensively defeated the commonwealth of
Australia on 19 July 2006!

ADDRESS TO THE COURT including SUBMISSIONS By the Defendant, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka. 55
For 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
However, having done so, the Defendant then is faced with the Commonwealth Director of
Public Prosecutions being for warned as to what the Defendant intends to do in most issues and
as such may seek to counteract those arguments. It is not the counter argument itself that the 60

67
p67 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Defendant is worried about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting
for the Australian Electoral Commission in their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace
words in what is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge
made a certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr
Peter Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive 5
statement to the High Court of Australia.

For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his
argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following;
10
QUOTE
22 In Foster v J ododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule
that not less than so many days refers to clear days unless the context or the statutory intention
reveals a contrary intention.
END QUOTE 15
His quotation is again false and misleading!

Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following;
QUOTE
unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention 20
END QUOTE
This ought to be;
QUOTE
unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention
END QUOTE 25

Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case for
the Court to deal with a statutory intention versus subject matter.

Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001); 30

The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (not
less that or at least a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as
found in ss156(1) and 157.
35
Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search shall not be less
than or shall not be less that. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the
Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were
found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading.
40
We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the

ASSOCIATED DOMI NI ONS ASSURANCE SOCI ETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD
(1950) 81 CLR 161
45
What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case
really was on about.
As the authority stated:

The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which 50
was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.

68
p68 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Mr Peter Hank QC didnt argue that the authority wasnt relevant, to the contrary he argued its
relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about. As
such, it had nothing to do with within as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usage
within was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did imply. 5

It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed
deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry
about the means as long as it achieves his end results.
Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any 10
nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any
AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research.
Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT but I experienced that when it comes to the
Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from
experiences their oath of alliance is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also further 15
in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT.

It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented fraudulent
Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not have ruled that it
had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought. And in the end this 20
case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could have been addressed
appropriately before any federal election had been held!

I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to
limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) religious objection but includes also 25
any secular belief objection.

If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being theistic belief then it would be unconstitutional.

QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006 30
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22
nd
Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001 35
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Re; religious objection (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) 40
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.

Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
that while using the religious objection referred to in subsection 245(14) of the 45
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
only to an theistic belief based religious objection but in fact it also includes any secular
belief based religious objection, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
an objection. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only theistic belief based religious 50

69
p69 29-7-2014
A 1
st
objections. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
religious objection have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an religious objection requires to state his/her
religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a religious objection as the
mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a 5
religious objection. Therefore, the wording religious objection is to be taken as objection
without the word religion having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
10
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
END QUOTE

ADDRESS TO THE COURT including SUBMISSIONS By the Defendant, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka. 15
For 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an invasion as to his rights.
Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
20
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust 25
under the Commonwealth.

WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNI TED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 30

1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing 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
words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to 35
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.
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 40
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.
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. 45
Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE

What we therefore have is fraudulent conduct by even the governments lawyers and so not
surprisingly some citizens will adapt this kind of conduct also. After all if the government deems 50
it justifiable to railroad a case against itself and abuse and misuse the courts for this purposes
then why should ordinary citizens not do the same, they may ask.
.

70
p70 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Whatever may have possessed the High Court of Australia to try to claim the Commonwealth
can have every blue eyed baby killed, perhaps some masonic principle they might adhere to I
wonder, nevertheless I do not accept this is a legislative power invested with the Commonwealth,
and this besides the lunacy associated with making such a statement. 5
I for one as a CONSTITUTIONALIST hold that McHugh was so to say a lunatic to make such
statement, because while the Commonwealth can legislate as to the punishment of crimes, it
cannot legislate to have unilaterally all blue eyed babies killed< as no such legislative powers
exist for the commonwealth of Australia. Hence, any such kind of legislation would be ULTRA
VIRES, IF THE Commonwealth were to legislate for such absurdity. 10
As such kind of putting to death of every blue eyed baby would be something that would at
least require an indictment, then how would this be accomplished against an under aged child.

71
p71 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Children under the age of 10 years old ordinary are deemed not able to form a mental picture of
committing a crime and so cannot be charged and yet McHugh seems to take it that somehow
babies (every blue eyed baby) somehow could be legislated for to be killed. Even if each and
every parent of a blue eyed baby had committed a serious crime and even if there was still a
death penalty in force, the children hardly could have been the subject of a death penalty not 5
having committed any crimes, as after all they are babies.
In my view what McHugh did was to show his as I view it low intellect and the lack of any
proper understanding and comprehension of what the constitution and a Chapter III court is about
and also the legislative powers or the lack of it for the Commonwealth of Australia to enact such
legislation. The danger of a High Court of Australia judge to make such a statement that could be 10
misinterpreted by radicals is very serious indeed. Likewise, we have other judges who I view
make statement that often I wonder if they escaped from some mental asylum then being actually
qualified to be a judicial officer in a court. We need however to be careful with having a judge
making simular such idiotic statement(s). After all liker the judge seeking to justify the rape of a
young woman on basis what the criminal grew up with as purported traditions/customers of his 15
parents native country we must be condemning this with total force available to us.

There are different versions of love, such as you may love to want to have a have a smoke
(cigarette) but prohibited by law, at the location you are. You may love, and indeed desire, to 20
have a large television but unless you follow lawful procedures you may just have to do with
watching it from the footpath. You may love an animal, being it a bird, dog, cat, goldfish or
whatever but again all within the rule of law. It might be common law and/or statute law but
nevertheless where there are rules you have to obey them.
You may love another person of whatever age and again provided you stay within the limits of 25
those acceptable by society at large you can do no wrong. However, do not and never seek to
excuse acting against those standards merely because of whatever may personally drive you.

72
p72 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Regardless if the wedding is deemed ritual or lawful nevertheless we cannot condone such kind
of practice. De facto marriages regretfully are accepted as like a real marriage and by this
undermines the institution of marriage and what it seeks to protect.
While it may be argued that was in South Africa, nevertheless ample of persons migrate into
Australia and live here permanent and we wouldnt want them to create this kind of marriage 5
environment. The child claims his ancestors told him so but was it just his late grandfather before
he died placing such absurd burden upon the child?
We should get away of trying to make excuses if any kind of sexual intercourse or sexual
conduct is or is not religious, custom, tradition or otherwise based as we will never resolve this
issue. What we need to do is to clamp down on those who are and those who arrive in the 10
Commonwealth of Australia and to have an ongoing education program that in particularly assist
girls to understand that whatever customs and traditions may have existed in parents native
country they are not applicable here if they are unacceptable to our society standards.
If therefore an adult person holds to be in love with a child (an under aged child) then let this
person wait until the child is at the age of consent and then work it out with that (matured) child. 15

Those who dont like to accept the rule of law as we have them simply can ship out back to
the native country where their kind of customs/traditional practices are acceptable.

Because in general men are demonstrated to be the demons whereas the women are more given 20
so to say the status of saint hood it is appropriate to reflect to some reality about some women,
their numerous marriages, the fraud and how they seek to rely upon the soldiers going to war to
so to say fight for Queen and County then hope their dead will be a financial bonanza.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/series/unknown-history-of-misandry/war-marriage-vampires- 25
fake-war-brides-of-ww-i/
QUOTE

War-marriage vampires & Fake war brides of WW I
30
December 11, 2013 By Robert St. Estephe 2 Comments
Robert St. EstepheGonzo Historianis dedicated to uncovering the forgotten past of marginalizing men. Gonzo
journalism is characterized as tending to favor style over fact to achieve accuracy. Yet history especially
social history is written by ideologues who distort and bury facts in order to achieve an agenda. Gonzo
writing is seen as unorthodox and surprising. Yet, in the 21st century subjectivity, distortion and outright lying in 35
non-fiction writing is the norm. Fraud is the new orthodoxy. Consequently, integrity is the new transgressive.
Welcome to the disruptive world of facts, the world of Gonzo History.
Todays informed male is aware he is liable to be the target of predatory women who see
him as a walking wallet, a sperm donor, a disposable instrument of erotic utility, a
handyman and a target of extreme emotional and physical outbursts (which are defined 40
under the gender ideology as justifiable personal-as-political responses to patriarchal
oppression) that will be blamed on the target himself. Readers familiar with historical
stories published on AVfM will be familiar with old-timey womens rackets which
exploited traditional female privilege such as the Badger Game, the Alimony Racket, the
Heart Balm Racket and the Lonely Hearts Racket. 45
(Also see: The profits of love: early 1900s AVfM). Heres another one to add to the
list. It was targeted against servicemen, the majority of them conscripts it would seem, and

73
p73 29-7-2014
A 1
st
was called at its inception in the U.S. during World War I by various names: Fake War
Brides, Soldiers Pay Wives, and War-Marriage Vampires.
Heres how it worked: When war would break out, gold-diggers, already long-accustomed
to view short-term marriage (or oftentimes a series of such marriages) as sources of
alimony would, across the nation, mobilize to take advantage of the wartime opportunity to 5
grab some easy cash from the boys going off to war. These industrious girls sought a
monthly government check to which the servicemens wives were entitled and, if the
bride was fortunate, the husband, or husbands, would be killed off, gaining the lucky war
widow an extra monetary benefit. When the young man survived, the wife would on his
return promptly divorce him. The most ambitious of these marital scammers would marry 10
several, insuring them a good income.
This is the first installment of several that will trace the history of this particular scam
practiced by female predators. Later installments will feature the scam as practiced in
World War II and the Korean War, when the predators came to be known under the
monikers Allotment Wives or Allotment Annies. 15
Following are two historical articles describing the scam in general terms, plus an article on
an ambitious young woman who managed to marry 16 victims.

FULL TEXT: Bigamy as a regular industry is one of the menaces that soldiers about to leave for
the other side, and men in the army camps scattered all over the United States, have to face. 20
There have been several cases of bigamy in Reading [Pennsylvania] only recently, but cases in
which soldiers were the victims have not been recovered here. The object in these plurality of
marriages is the soldiers allowances and pensions to wives. Because soldiers are susceptible and
chivalrous the government of the United States is being robbed of thousands of dollars every
month by unscrupulous women. Soldiers in Uncle Sams uniform who believe they are depriving 25

74
p74 29-7-2014
A 1
st
themselves of part of their small wages to support a newly acquired wife are merely contributing
to adventuresses who are deriving the same source of revenue from several soldier husbands.
While the soldier is carrying on at the front with the picture of his newly acquired bride close
over his heart, the bride is carrying on at home as the result of receiving as many allotments as
her charms may enabled her to assemble soldier husbands. 5

~ Stamping out Vampires. ~
In an effort to stamp out this new vampire of war times the government of the United States is
starting a nationwide search for the culprits and is meeting with considerable success. Every
agency of the government is being brought to bear to ferret out the offenders. 10
The work of ferreting out fraud against the government in this and other respects is in charge of
L. Merriwether Smith, of Harrisburg, Ky., formerly a member of the Kentucky State Senate and
now associate council for the War Risk Bureau. More than 100 cases already are prepared for
trial, and many women are facing prison sentences as a result of their activities. These case are
but the beginning of the prosecutions, which are expected to mount into the thousands. The 15
bureau has worked out a unique system by which soldiers allotments are checked up.

~ Victims Young Boys. ~
Most of the victims to this form of vampiring, it appears, according to the war risk bureau, are
young boys from the country to reach the various camps with chivalrous ideas of women. There 20
boys are attracted by the dashing camp widows, fall victim to the appearance of style, and end
by marrying them and making an allotment of part of their soldiers pay as required by law. A
private is expected, when married, to make an allotment of $15 to his wife, and the government
matches this allotment with an allowance of $15 more, so the wife receives $30 and the soldier
goes to the war front with a wage of $15 a month. In some cases women who have participated in 25
this form of depriving both soldiers and government have been drawing allotments and
allowances from 12 different husbands. Each allowance calls for the assumption of a different
name and the check has to be indorsed, subjecting the perpetrator to the charge of forgery and
also that of bigamy. In order to obtain these allowances the women run the risk of having the 12
husbands, more or less, meet each other in the trenches somewhere in France, where a 30
comparison of notes and of photographs of the wives left behind might cause embarrassing
complications.

~ More from the Pacific. ~
The checks sent out by the treasury department are mailed in an envelope which renders the 35
address and allowance number visable from the outside, so the mail carrier, post office
employees and others may become aware of the person receiving them. In cases where suspicion
is awakened the authorities are notified.
Singularly enough, the Pacific coast produces more of these cases than does the Atlantic. Mr.
Smith, who has charge of the investigations, explains this on the ground that the women of the 40
Pacific coast, especially of San Francisco, have had more experience in this form of fraud than
the women of the East.
These cases were especially prevalent during the time when soldiers were being sent to the
Philippines, said Mr. Smith, discussing the cases today.
45
~ Soldiers Party to Fraud. ~
While the great majority of fraud cases involve women who have deluded trusting young soldiers, there are also
cases of soldiers who themselves have been party to fraud. In these instances they have alleged the existence of
wives who were not their wives, and have made claims for allowances for children that did not exist. Under the law,
an illegitimate child is entitled to allowance for support, and the government has cognizance of cases where soldiers 50
have made claims to the parentage of illegitimate children who did not really exist.

75
p75 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The government has record of one case where a soldier claimed a man was his relative to whom he had contributed
money for support. It developed the man was not related to the soldier in any way but explained the transaction by
saying the soldier had stolen $50 from him at [the finish of sentence the articles last is illegible].
[Bigamy an Industry For Fake War Brides U. S. Uncovers Thousands Of Cases Of Girls Marrying For Allowance
and Insurance, The Reading Eagle (Pa.), Nov. 3, 1918, p. 17] 5

FULL TEXT: San Francisco, Oct. 4.The dollar vampire who schemed to mulct the American volunteer soldier in
the great war under the guise of marriage, is cashing in through the divorce courts.
Amazed at the cynical assurance with which many such war brides have brought their alimony pleas before him, 10
Judge Thomas F. Graham, nationally known as the Great Reconciler for his mediation in domestic tangles, and
deep student of the divorce problem, is seeking nation-wide co-operation of courts to thwart further victimization.

~ Up to Courts ~
Not alone to assure justice in individual cases, says Judge Graham, but to support the marriage institution and to 15
heck further growth of love cynicism among Americas youth, must courts be alert to see that disillusioned war
veterans are not further bled in the marriage bunco game through undeserved alimony.
Wherever possible, both parties should be compelled to appear in court. The womans story should not be
sufficient, and diligent investigation of war marriages that smack for alimony is particularly vital at this time.
20
~ Hasty Marriages ~
Blame for wreck and mercenary salvage of war marriages is not placed entirely upon women by Judge Graham. The
haste and indiscretion of many men marrying on the eve of overseas departure made the designing overtures of
women of that kind all too easy.
But such unions are not proper alimony cases, and it is this feature that he is fighting with all the legitimate powers 25
of the court.

76
p76 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Surprised by the unexpected return of soldiers whose allotments she sought, but whom she never again expected to
see, the marriage profiteer is hastening to sever the matrimonial bond, but seeks to retain this financial tie.

~ Divorces Double ~
The matrimonial profiteer, says Judge Graham, is a thousand times more dangerous than the economic profiteer 5
who can more readily be reached by law.
Since the war began, divorces have increased 50 per cent in California, and I am sure it is the same over the
nation.
Thousands of young men in the heat of war married women who lived with them perhaps two or three days, then
put in claims for alimony. I know of one case in which a woman married five soldiers and for a long time collected 10
allotments from each.
Many married soldiers hoping they would be killed in France so that they could collect insurance.
Now that our soldiers have returned, many are finding how they have being victimized! They are too disgusted, too
disillusioned to fight. The courts must do it for them.
[Paul N. Wilson, Halt War-Marriage Vampire! Noted Judge Fights Alimony Drive On Veterans, syndicated 15
(NEA), Oct. 19, 1920, p. 3]

FULL TEXT: Chicago, Dec. 2. Mrs. Helen Ferguson Drexler, 22 years old, has confessed to having been married
to sixteen men in the past three years. The young woman, who was arrested here today by Government agents,
admitted having married the men, all of whom were either soldiers or sailors, for the sole reason of securing the 20
allotment issued by the War Risk Bureau to a wife of a man in the service.
You men try to make me admit the marriage of ten men, she said. Why, that is just more than half. I had sixteen
of them during my career and was going to marry another in a few days if I had not been arrested.
The first man to whom I was married was an auto salesman, in Boston, in 1918. After the wedding we lived
together until he was called to France. Shortly afterward I got word of his death. I tried to forget, but being by 25
myself I was soon forced to seek company, and finally married a man from New York. I was getting the allotment
from the Government due me from my first husband at that time.
I lived with my second husband contentedly for several months. He joined the navy. I got an allotment from him.
One day I met a woman who heard of the two allotments I was getting from the Government, amounting to $60 a
month. She suggested that inasmuch as the money was easy I should keep it up and marry again. I could make 30
hundreds of dollars a month by this scheme, if it worked.
I consented and married again, this time a soldier in the Brooklyn Navy Yard named John Kelly. He signed his
allotment to me. I left him and went in search of another husband.
From then on life was just one husband after another. The income amounted to $500 a month. After two years I had
married ten men. I cant recall all the names. I went to Norfolk, Va., and married again. Each time I only stayed with 35
my husband until I got the allotment signed to me and then left.

77
p77 29-7-2014
A 1
st
[22-Year-Old Girl Married 16 Service Men; Collected $500 Monthly in Allotments, New York Times (N.Y.),
Dec. 3, 1921, p. 1]
***
FULL TEXT: Mrs. Helen Drexler Ferguson, 22 years old, was released yesterday from Geneva jail, twelve days
before the expiration of her six months sentence for marrying a number of soldiers and sailors estimated at from 5
fifteen to seventeen, in order to get their allotments.
She is to undergo an operation at Aurora hospital.
Following the operation Mrs. Ferguson will be given a ticket to Washington, where her parents reside, by the
Salvation Army, which has taken an interest in her case.
Mrs. Ferguson says she has no other plans for the future than to go to some small city where she can find congenial 10
employment.
[Girl Who Married Soldiers For Pay Checks Released, Aurora Daily Star (Il.), Jun. 21, 1922, p. 1]
[Photo from: 15 Husbands, All Yanks, The Bisbee Daily Review (Az.), Jan. 15, 1922, p. 2]

World War I. US mobilization of 4,355,000. After declaration of war the US target for volunteer 15
enlistment for the first 6 weeks was set at 1 million. Yet only 73,000 men volunteered. On May
18, 1917 the Selective Service Act was passed, with a minimum age of 21. Ultimately 4,355,000
were mobilized. During the war United States forces suffered 323,018 casualties.

A recent essay discussing this subject: Allotment Annies and Other Wayward Wives:. Wartime 20
Concerns About Female Disloyalty and the Problem of the Returned Veteran, in The United
States and the Second World War Fordham University Press September 2010, pp. 99-128]
Filed Under: Featured, Robert St. Estephe's Unknown History of MisandryTagged With: Male Disposability,
Marriage Rackteering, Military, Preadatory Women
END QUOTE 25
Well, the above has been some work to compile and yet there is so much more to canvas but I
will leave that for another time. What however must be clear from it all is that there is a lot of rot

78
p78 29-7-2014
A 1
st
going on and the last thing we need is to sharply escalate problems. The moment we open the
gates for same gender marriage then do not claim it will not proceed further to bestiality
marriages, etc. We have a hypocritical conduct by the Federal Government that on the one hand
it claims that a marriage is between one woman and one man, and then allow this man or woman
to be recognised with multiple other de facto spouses. We must become more open minded, as 5
referred to above, to understand why there are people who in what we understand to be
homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, etc, and so what can be done to address these kind of
issues. What indeed would the Federal Government do where a man arrives with his 9 year old
child bride to live in the Commonwealth of Australia? We may not appreciate a child bride of 8
or 9 years to be married off but if they are lawfully married within the laws of their native 10
country then so be it. Will we deny the child, a married woman for marriage purposes, entry in to
the Commonwealth of Australia not because she committed any crimes, indeed so to say is the
victim, but we cannot have her being engaged in a sexual act with an adult even so being her
lawfully wedded husband. After all, if the Commonwealth of Australia were to permit this kind
of child to reside as a married woman then what would stop Australians to marry other child 15
brides during an overseas trip and then have such a child involved in paedophilia under the cover
of being a matrimonial matter?
Likewise the issue with same gender marriage, do we recognise any overseas same gender
marriage or not? If we do then we leave the gates wide open as that those who marry overseas
with an animal then also can seek recognition of their matrimonial status. 20
In my view, considering what I stated above, it would be better to accept that a marriage is a
civil contract between a man and a woman and no more. No such thing as a de facto
marriage, a same sex/gender marriage, etc, as otherwise you open the flood doors and we will
discover afterwards the permanent harm we inflicted upon those who will live well beyond the
time we passed away. We need to narrow the field of abuses/misuses and ensure that pensions 25
are there for the old age and the disabled as the Framers of the Constitution intended and not for
some ingenious provision that if an old veteran happened to contract a matrimonial alliance with
a young maid of seventeen the pension lasted during her life as well..
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7040684/yemeni-child-bride-dies-of-bleeding-after-intercourse
QUOTE 30
Yemeni child bride dies of bleeding after intercourse
A 13-year-old Yemeni girl who was forced into marriage died five days after her wedding when she suffered
a rupture in her sex organs and hemorrhaging, a local rights organisation says.
END QUOTE
There is nothing wrong with making known to other countries our own vies and principles, 35
something like: We do not support your kind of conduct as to paedophilia, bestiality, same
sex/gender marriage, and we would like you to consider what we wish to present about those
issues. If any country refused this then well, if our principles are real principles and not
pretended to be so, then we just cut of any financial aid, trade & commerce, etc to make known
we will not and neither desire to be seen to support this kind of conduct. After all if sanction 40
were all right to use against the South Africas Government regarding Apartheid issues then why
not use this power of possible persuasion in other fields?
I look forwards to your details response, if any courtesy will eventuate as such.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 24-12-2013 correspondence Mr Tony Abbott
50
QUOTE 1-3-2014 correspondence Mr Tony Abbott

79
p79 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr Tony Abbott MP 1-3-2014
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au, info@pm.gov.au
Cc: Mr Clive Palmer
Palmer United Party Admin@PalmerUnited.com 5

Ref: 20140301-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM Re Race
Tony,
there are ample of people concerned about how Muslims are taking over and how already
certain parts of Sydney are governed by councils dominated by Muslims and yet while s116 of 10
the constitution provides for;
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK)
QUOTE
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any 15
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE 20

Reality is that our constitution has been created in such manner that the issue of religion can be
ignored and yet still what many may deem appropriate action can be undertaken, if not already
existing. Indeed, many existing legislation may already have so to say wiped out many people
from being able (that is constitutionally) of being electors and so also being in elected offices. 25

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I should like to ask a question with regard to clause 75, as to whether it is 30
intended to leave the right of appeal from a state or the Federal High Court itself direct to the Privy Council,
as it stands in the Bill, or whether the matter can be subsequently opened by the Parliament?
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am afraid that if I were to answer questions as to what is intended to
be done, I should expose the Drafting Committee to a flood of interrogations. I can only say that what we
intend to do is to carry out the decisions of the committee. Of course there are one or two cases in which 35
the [start page 2439] decisions which have been arrived at require a certain amount of interpretation in
the light of the debates, and in those cases we shall take what was said, as well as what was put in the
Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining what the movers of provisions desire. In the case of the proposal my
honorable friend carried, and which was put as a proviso to clause 74, it is evident that the words as they
appear are only in the nature of instructions to the committee, and they will have to be interpreted in 40
the light of statements made by my honorable friend in answer to inquiries by me. That is the course that will
be pursued. When an amendment, as carried, is intended only as a suggestion to the committee, it will be
interpreted in that way.
END QUOTE
45
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re
Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
Last Updated: 22 September 2000
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation 50

80
p80 29-7-2014
A 1
st
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at 5
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event - 10
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE

I HAVE QUOTED SOME EXTENSIVE STATEMENTS FROM THE HANSARD 15
DEBATES TO SHOW ALSO THAT WHILE WE CAN TAKE CONSIDERATION OF
CERTAIN us COURTS DECISIONS REGARDING RELIGIOUS AND TAXATION
ISSUES WE MUST HOWEVER DO SO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DIFFERENT
ENRIRONMENTS THAT EXIST AND HOW THE US CONSTITUTION IS
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES WHEREAS THE SAME MAY NOT OR IS NOT 20
APPLICABLE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

I didnt reside in the Commonwealth of Australia when it had its con-job referendum regarding
s51(xxvi) to remove the exclusion of Aboriginals. Indeed, had I been in the Commonwealth of
Australia and possessed the knowledge I now have then I would have strongly advised against 25
this amendment of the constitution. As I understand it in the 1950s the then Federal Government
was strongly advised against such an amendment as there is too much a baggage with s(xxvi) and
it would have been better to create altogether a new section. So, how does this pan out? Well,
legislation, including the constitution our primary governing law, must always be held to apply to
have one meaning. You cannot have that a particular has a certain meaning for some people and 30
a total different meaning for others. The law must be constant as otherwise no one would be able
to know what the law stands for.
.
Australasian Convention) 35
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
. 40
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to 45
this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is 50
commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE
.

81
p81 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE 5

Therefore, the constitution and any legislation enacted within the legislative powers provided
must all be that the unlettered people can understand it.
.
It means one doesnt want a High Court of Australia to fabricate something that purportedly 10
existed in the constitution but just that all previous judges in the previous 100 odd years didnt
know, as if unlettered people didnt understand this from the constitution (as vetoed
referendums in that regard) then it never was existing as a legislative power in the first place.
(consider the WorkChoices 2006 decision in that regard).
15
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act 20
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than 25
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every 30
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will 35
determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a 40
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? 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-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the 45
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,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a 50
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. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE 55
.
Therefore judges who nevertheless are infringing into the true meaning and application of the
constitution , being it to be de facto legislators as I understand Mason CJ claimed to do, then they
become traitors to the root of their own judicial powers as well as to the general community.

82
p82 29-7-2014
A 1
st
.
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution 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 5
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE 10
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.- 15
No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the 20
Constitution.
END QUOTE

There are numerous other statements I could quote but you may get the picture that the Parliament is bound by the
true meaning and application of the constitution and not even the High Court of Australia can interfere with this. 25
In the WorkChoices decision as I view it the judges took out of context what the Framers of the Constitution had
been record in the Hansard to have stated and this to me is a very serious conduct of betrayal to the general
community.
.
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE 35

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both. 40
END QUOTE

Therefore where the High Court of Australia claims to be the 3
rd
Department of the Government
instead of being part of the constitution it by this already has shown its bias.
As quote below: 45

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation, A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-
2006 decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5
(Book-Colour)
QUOTE Chapter 022A Failure of the case 50
D\'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12 (10 March 2005) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ
RYAN D'ORTA-EKENAIKE APPLICANT AND VICTORIA LEGAL AID & ANOR RESPONDENTS
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12 10 March 2005 M61/2003
GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND HEYDON JJ; 55
As s 71 of the Constitution says, what is "vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of
Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with
federal jurisdiction" is the judicial power of the Commonwealth, that is, the judicial power of the national
polity. No matter whether the judicial branch of government is separated from the other branches of

83
p83 29-7-2014
A 1
st
government (as it is and must be at the federal level[29] but, at least generally, is not at the State level[30]) it
is, in Quick and Garran's words[31], "the third great department of government".
END QUOTE Chapter 022A Failure of the case

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction. 10
END QUOTE

Obviously being part of the constitution is considerably different than being part of the
government as a Department. A government Department such a VCAT (Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal is bound to adhere to government policy, where as a Court must adhere 15
to the letter of the law.

QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on 20
terms that are just to both.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a 25
desire to draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this
insidious amendment, which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different
constructions on this most important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in
many instances before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already
arrived at. 30
END QUOTE

The Framers of the Constitution being aware that over time peoples contemporary views may
differ from what was at the time of the constitution having been placed before the People,
therefore provided for a mechanism to amend the constitution by way of s128. 35
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: Let this speech do for the referendum also.
Mr. TRENWITH: I say with these evidences of the desire on the part of the people for more freedom, 40
for greater facilities for giving effect to the popular will, we ought to make provision in this
Constitution by which the will of the people can become law. If we do that we shall be doing something
which will make it more certain that this Constitution will be adopted by the people.
END QUOTE
45
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE 50

This means any legislation (such as I challenged successfully on 19 July 2001 in the County
Court of Victoria regarding s245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 of religious
exclusion was unconstitutional unless it included non-religious persons also, and s383
AVERMENT being unconstitutional as the Commonwealth sought to infringe upon the 55
sovereign judicial rights of State courts how to conduct litigation, when exercising federal
jurisdiction) beyond constitutional powers are ULTRA VIRES.

84
p84 29-7-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when 5
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
10
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the
general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question of
ultra vires arising after a law has been passed. 15
[start page 2004]
Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.
END QUOTE

But, even if a legislation was deemed to be within the context of legislative powers it still 20
could be deemed unconstitutional
.
QUOTE
Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, 25
but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE 30
Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by
contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to
obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the
day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time
ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in 35
regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was
declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE 45
.
Therefore, one cannot provide legislation, even if ordinary within legislative powers to try
to prohibit a religion such as the Islamic religion because of s116 and neither can one
legislate within ordinary legislative powers as to seek to achieve a purpose that is otherwise
unconstitutional as it infringes s116 of the constitution. 50
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. 55
END QUOTE

85
p85 29-7-2014
A 1
st
What is clear from the above is that any legislation enacted as to seek to interfere with a
religious matter would be unconstitutional, this includes any religion that through tax
concessions or otherwise was to promote any religion.
QUOTE 5
Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the
Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the
moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you
place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should
not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all, however, to 10
any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to
the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having
given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for
the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I
shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of 15
the question, so entirely not to be expected-
Mr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.
END QUOTE

Any taxation exclusion for a religious entity would in my view offend s116 of the 20
constitution. The US Supreme Court has in numerous decisions, and it is from this
constitution we drew our s116 as it now is. Albeit we have the benefit of the statement of
Delegate Barton.
QUOTE 25
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
END QUOTE 30

Religious entities cannot have it both ways to be protected as a religious body against so to
say non-believers and at the same time attract benefits for being a religious entity.
Indeed, it is an unconstitutional advantage that a religious entity can get involved in certain
merchandise, etc, to sell to others and yet do not have to pay taxes as an ordinary business has 35
too. Hence, I view tax exemptions for religious entities is unconstitutional.
Why would the States (which covers all public matter) not be permitted any tax exemption but a
religious body that may attend to little or none general issue for non religious purposes would
attract tax exemption?
40
QUOTE
Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
the letting value would be taxed.
Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon 45
the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
the property would be taxable.
Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State 50

86
p86 29-7-2014
A 1
st
purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words: 5
Impose any tax on property
do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to 10
Customs duties.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?
Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which 15
I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
END QUOTE

The following may also indicate that the Victorian government selling of the Port of Melbourne) 20
Port Phillip Bay, etc) may have its own constitutional complications as it likely will cause a
conflict with the freedom of trade and commerce as well as the Commonwealth legislative
powers as to navigation including the ports to navigational rivers.
Because the following quotation also refers to exemption it has been included to provide an
overall understanding how the Framers of the Constitution debated exemption. 25

QUOTE
Amendment (by Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH) proposed:
That the word "bound," line 6, be emitted with a view to the insertion of the word "required." 30
Mr. BURGESS: Before the amendment suggested by the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, is put, I think
it would be well that he should explain exactly how he would obtain the statistics which will be necessary
from the various colonies, in order to distribute the customs revenue on the basis which has just been agreed
to, if we are to give any effect at all to the clause under consideration. I take it that what we have just agreed
to, instead of allowing trade to be free, will embarrass it more than it has ever been embarrassed in the past. I 35
am confident of that; and the result of the working will prove that the statement I am making is correct. If, in
addition to that, [start page 834] you pass this clause, by which any vessel leaving one port and sailing to
another will have to enter out, or clear, or report, you will never he able, I maintain, to obtain the information
which will be absolutely necessary in order to enable you to give effect to the clause which we have just
agreed to. Again, I would point out that cases will arise in regard to dutiable goods, goods carried under bond 40
from one colony to the other, in which it will be absolutely necessary for a vessel to be entered out and
cleared in the ordinary way in order to prevent smuggling or anything of that kind.
Sir THOMAS MCILWRAITH: I do not think this clause has been sufficiently considered, and it is quite
open to the objection raised by the hon. member, Mr. Burgess. Take the case for instance, of a vessel-and the
whole of the American trade is conducted very much-upon this principle coming from Boston to Melbourne. 45
She delivers some of her cargo there, and goes on to Sydney, and afterwards goes on to Brisbane. How do the
last three lines of the clause apply in a case of that kind? Why should she not discharge her cargo as she does
now in Melbourne or Sydney, pay the dues, and go on to the-next port, and pay dues there too? It has also
been overlooked that the dues referred to in the clause are part of the local revenue. What business have we to
say that the state shall not impose a local revenue? We have only taken charge of certain powers connected 50

87
p87 29-7-2014
A 1
st
with navigation; we have not taken over the ports of a colony, and we have no business to take over the
revenue of a colony.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: This is one of the celebrated clauses in the American Constitution, one of the
few clauses taken from it, and I am very much disposed to think it would have been better if it had stopped at
the end of the first sentence. I certainly think that it would be better to omit all the words after the word 5
"commonwealth."
Mr. DIBBS: This clause provides for free-trade between the ports of the various colonies. A simple
provision for a similar purpose was made by the colony of New South Wales eight or nine years ago in one of
the marine board bills. It was enacted that a vessel paying either tonnage or harbour dues in one port should
be exempt from paying them in any other port in the colony. I think that the word "duty in this clause is a 10
mistake, and that either "tolls" or "harbour dues" should be inserted in its place. We would to a certain extent
be robbing various states of a portion of their revenues; but for the good that would result it would be as well
to make the law as it is clearly intended it should be, by striking out the word duty." Then a vessel that paid
dues at Sydney would be exempt at Melbourne, Hobart, or any other port in Australia. The similar rule which
we made here eight or nine years ago has answered very well. 15
Mr. PLAYFORD: I think we had better leave the words as they are. They have been in the American
Constitution for over a hundred years.
Mr. DIBBS: Can the hon. member tell us what they meant a hundred years ago?
Mr. PLAYFORD: We know what they mean to-day!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: This is a very important clause. Vessels will really be bound to enter. I do not 20
know what the term "enter" exactly means; but the captain will have to go to the custom house, and state that
he is going to start, if only for statistical purposes, and he will have to take out shipping papers when he goes
away and pay some kind of dues.
I move:
That the clause be amended by omitting all the words after the word "commonwealth," line 4. 25
Mr. DIBBS: I would ask, supposing we had one gauge of railway through to [start page 835] the Victorian
capital, would it be necessary for a train to "clear" when she arrived on the border?
Sir JOHN BRAY: Railways do not come from foreign parts!
Mr. DIBBS: We are not going to call Hobart a foreign part. If federation is brought about, will Melbourne
be a foreign part? I am illustrating the matter. It is said that for statistical purposes it will be necessary for 30
vessels to have inter-colonial clearances. Formerly a vessel carrying 100 tons of coal from Newcastle to
Sydney "entered" here, and after she had discharged her cargo "cleared," before going back to Newcastle. All
this gave needless trouble to the captain; but now a vessel takes out a clearance only once a year. If we have
trade between Sydney and Melbourne across the border without any interference by customs laws, or for
statistical purposes, why should we not have trade equally free between Sydney and Hobart? A citizen of 35
Sydney has as much right to take a vessel free into Hobart or Melbourne as to cross the border free of duty by
rail. Information for statistical purposes can be obtained in another way. The clear object of inter-colonial
free-trade is to simplify trade in every possible shape, and ships should be allowed to go from one port in the
colonies to another without having to take out clearances or make entries each time.
Mr. MUNRO: I understand that the reason why the amendment was proposed was that it does not bind the 40
federation to a certain course, but leaves the federation to make its own arrangements. That is really what it
does; it does not compel them to do anything.
Mr. THYNNE: I sympathise with the hon. member, Mr. Playford, in his respect for this clause, because it
has been taken from the United States Constitution. I think we ought to hesitate before we eliminate the latter
part of it. The hon. member, Sir Thomas McIlwraith, suggests the difficulty in the case of a ship from Boston 45
discharging part of her goods in Melbourne or Sydney, or in any other port.
Sir THOMAS MCILWRAITH: The same thing applies to all the mail ships!

88
p88 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. THYNNE: Under this clause those ships would not be affected in the slightest degree. In the words
"and vessels bound to or from one part shall not be bound to enter, clear, or pay duty in another part," the
words "another part," refer to some place other than the port from which the vessels are bound or the port to
which they are going. The hon. member, Mr. Dibbs, has really pointed out an instance that this clause is
intended to provide for: that is, that a vessel coming from Melbourne to Newcastle shall not be required to 5
pass entries at Sydney, nor that any regulation of that kind under the constitution shall be permitted which
would give a preference to any one port or part of a district over another. I think that the words "another part"
apply to some place other than either the place from which the ship is coming or that to which she is going. In
the place from which she is coming she has had to pay her ordinary dues, and she will have to pay in the
place at which she arrives. This clause has come down really as the result of some of the oppressive 10
navigation regulations of the old time in the United States. That is no doubt the origin of it, and with the hon.
member, Mr. Playford, I have every respect for the operation of this clause as preventing what has happened
in the past, and what may happen in the future, and to keep our constitution free from the danger against
which the Americans thought it necessary to provide.
Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to. 15
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: The reason of this clause is not hard to see, but it is a clause which reads in a rather 20
difficult way. It is practically as it stood in the Bill of 1891. The reason that persons in receipt only of pay,
half-pay, or pension, in the Queen's navy or army, are exempted is that they are not holding an office of
profit under the Commonwealth at all, but their pay comes from the Imperial Government. It is obvious
that there is no necessity whatsoever on the ground of interest to exclude them from having positions in the
Parliament of the Commonwealth, because they are not servants of the Commonwealth, and have no 25
interest whatever springing from the Commonwealth such as under the previous branch of the section
disqualifies anybody.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then this is not necessary.
[start page 755]
Mr. BARTON: Yes, it is; because it might otherwise be read to apply that way. The hon. member will well 30
remember the case of Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, whose election for County Clare was upset on the ground that,
while he was a Minister of the Crown in Victoria, he was holding an office of profit under the Crown.
That case shows the necessity of these exceptions. Then those are exempted who receive a new commission
in the Queen's navy or army, or an increase of pay on a new commission. That covers the case of those who
receive a fresh commission, who happen to have been a member of the Queen's army drawing pay, half-pay, 35
or pension, or who receive an increase of pay, supposing they are only in receipt of a half-pay or pension. But
they are still persons employed under the Government of the Queen, and not under the Government of the
Commonwealth. Then the remainder of the clause exempts anyone:
Who is in receipt only of pay as an officer or member of the military or naval forces of the Commonwealth,
and whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth. 40
If he belongs to what is called the permanent force he will be disqualified, because he will be in receipt of
an ordinary office of profit under the Commonwealth. For instance, take the case Sir George Turner put,
of a general commanding the local forces. He has an Imperial commission, but beyond that he in receiving
pay from the Commonwealth, and would be ineligible. Take the officers of his staff, who are also
employed by the Commonwealth; they are ineligible. Take the men under them; they would be employed in 45
the regular forces, and would be in receipt of pay under the Commonwealth, and so ineligible. But as
regards the members of what is usually known as the volunteer, or the militia, or the partially paid forces,
it was considered reasonable in the 1891 Bill to exempt them, and I think it is reasonable to exempt them
now.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No one objects to that. 50
Mr. BARTON: The main point is that we exempt persons in receipt of pay, half-pay, or pension, or
commission in the Queen's service, apart from the Commonwealth, on the ground that as they do not draw
their pay from the Commonwealth, they have no interest against the Commonwealth.

89
p89 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. KINGSTON: Have you that provision in New South Wales?
Mr. BARTON: I think we have, but I will reply to that question in a minute.
Sir JOHN DOWNER: They have it in Queensland.
Mr. Barton's amendment-to insert the words "or member" after "officer" in the second line of sub-section 2 -
agreed to. 5
Mr. GORDON: I think it is very unfair to exclude from the operation of this clause pensioners of the
Queen and not pensioners of the Commonwealth. There is no connection between political and military
services, and I fail to see why pensioners of the Commonwealth should be under any disability. I move:
In line 40, after "pay" to insert "or pension."
Mr. BARTON: I can quite see the point of the hon. member, but we have to read, the remainder of the 10
clause, which includes:
And whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

The above quotation underlines that Sykes v Cleary was wrongly decided as Mr Cleary was not 15
employed by the Commonwealth but by the State of Victoria and as such no conflict of interest
existed with his election to the Federal Parliament.

QUOTE 20
Sub-section XVI.-Insurance, including State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned.
Mr. HIGGINS: I desire to understand whether by the word "State" here is meant a particular colony, or is
it used in the general sense-the State as distinct from the individual? I apprehend that the word "State" means
a particular colony, but I confess I do not understand the meaning of the term.
Mr. O'CONNOR: This is a new subsection. It proposes to include insurance, and I think it is a very 25
desirable inclusion amongst the list of powers. However, it involves a principle. The part the hon. member
referred to is for this purpose: It was suggested that colonies might undertake State insurance, as was done in
New Zealand, and it was held that State insurance should not come under the general laws. From that view I
entirely dissent; but this clause was drawn in accordance with the views of the Constitutional Committee. The
hon. member will see, therefore, that the words "State insurance" simply indicate that whereas a State within 30
its own boundaries should have control of all its insurance business, and the regulation of its insurance under
any State system, so far as it deals with the people within its own boundaries, any part of its system that
proposes to deal with people beyond its boundaries should come under the general laws. "State" is used to
designate colony. I should support the hon. member if be moved to strike out:
Including State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned. 35
Mr. ISAACS: It would include all insurance then?
Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes; and I think it ought to. If a State chooses to go into the business of insurance-I do
not say it is wise or not-I do not see why any departure should be made as to the uniformity of laws with
regard to insurance. The State should be subject to the same limitations as the individual if it goes in for State
insurance. It would be absurd to say it should not. Supposing every State adopted a system of State insurance, 40
according to this exception each State would be able to adopt a different method, so long as it kept within its
own boundaries, and you might have five different Systems of insurance outside the general law.
Mr. ISAACS: Is that not States rights?
Mr. O'CONNOR: No; because you start with the proposition that general insurance laws must be the same
throughout the colonies. 45

90
p90 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. SYMON: The object of this, I understand, is to exercise a federal control over any State undertaking
the business of insurance outside its own boundaries. I agree, and most people will too, that if a State enters
upon a commercial undertaking it should have no privileges and exemptions from which ordinary individuals
are not free; but the language used here seems to be open to the criticism of Mr. Higgins.
Mr. WISE: By keeping it in you give special privileges within its boundaries. 5
Mr. SYMON: To that I do not object. If South Australia chooses to establish a System of State insurance, I
do not see why she should not within her own limits. It affects her own subjects only, and we should diminish
the rights of self-government if we decided otherwise; but if South Australia opens agencies in Victoria, then
the federal law should be able to say, "If South Australia chooses to enter into commercial rivalry with those
companies outside her own territory, she [start page 780] should be subject to the conditions imposed in other 10
countries." I think that is the extent to which this provision was intended to go.
Mr. O'CONNOR: Hear, hear.
Mr. SYMON: It seems tome that these words:
Including State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned
ought to be, in the sense in which they they were inserted- 15
Mr. HIGGINS: Struck out.
Mr. SYMON: No; retained. But I doubt with Mr. Higgins whether they exactly and clearly give effect to
that sense. I suggest some verbal modification such as the following:
Including any business of State insurance extending its operations beyond the limits of the State adopting it.
Mr. O'CONNOR: Hear, hear. That would be better. 20
Mr. SYMON: The words:
State concerned
are a little ambiguous.
Mr. HIGGINS: I agree thoroughly in principle with Mr. Symon as to his intentions, but I would suggest
that what is wanted here is an excluding phrase, and not an including phrase. Insurance covers all kinds of 25
insurance. You want an excepting phrase. "Insurance" will be the general expression, and then will follow:
Except State insurance confined to the limits of the particular State.
Mr. SYMON: That is the better way.
Mr. KINGSTON: Put it this way:
Excluding State insurance within the State limits. 30
Mr. GLYNN: We ought to be careful as to how we restrict the operations of State insurance. In 1869 New
Zealand State insurance was established, and now, as a matter of fact, a very large business is carried on by
the Government of New Zealand beyond the limits of that colony. According to the statistics of 1891, the
position of New Zealand State Insurance in Australia was second only to that of the Australian Mutual
Provident Society. 35
Mr. FRASER: The New Zealand Government do not go beyond their own limits.
Mr. GLYNN: They do. Policies are taken up elsewhere. And we ought to be careful how we attempt to
confine the business of the New Zealand State insurance to that colony, because Australian insurance
companies do large business in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Government may retaliate by excluding
them. In 1891, out of 56,000 policies in force in New Zealand, the Government held 29,256, and the 40
Australian Mutual Provident 16,761. If you impose a federal law, restricting the operation of State insurance
without the limits of that State-

91
p91 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. HIGGINS: That is not intended. The intention is to have the federal law only to apply to insurance
which is general over the colonies.
Mr. GLYNN: You can impose a restriction upon New Zealand in carrying on business within the limits of
the federal power.
Mr. O'CONNOR: Why should New Zealand State insurance be in any different position from the 5
insurance of any company?
Mr. GLYNN: The present law extends to New Zealand State insurance. If you impose a special law upon
State insurance, the result will be that New Zealand will probably impose a company law in New Zealand.
Mr. FRASER: I do not think, notwithstanding what Mr. Glynn says, that the New Zealand Government
Insurance department is doing any business outside of New Zealand, with the exception of receiving 10
premiums.
Sir PHILIP FYSH: Only that their policyholders travel.
Mr. DEAKIN: They only receive the premiums here.
[start page 781]
Mr. FRASER: If a policy-holder goes to Kamtschatka, of course the premiums will be paid to the 15
department all the same.
Mr. DEAKIN: Is that near Oodnadatta?
Mr. FRASER: Yes, I suppose. I think it would be grossly unfair to allow a State to extend its operations in
life or any other insurances beyond its own limits. A department might be as rotten as possible, and carry on a
huge business at great risk, and nobody would be able to control it. I think it is the duty of the Federal 20
Parliament to make a law for the whole Commonwealth, giving a State power to establish an insurance
department within its own borders; but to give a department the liberty of going outside its borders would be
as absurd a thing as could be allowed.
Mr. WALKER: I would like to move:
That all the words after "insurance" be deleted. 25
The CHAIRMAN: You cannot do that. An amendment has been made by Mr. Higgins.
Mr. HIGGINS: I do not want to embarrass Mr. Walker if he has an amendment which ought to be
discussed, but I cannot see at present how my amendment may fit with his. My idea is this: That the Federal
Parliament should be allowed to deal with all insurance matters, with only one limitation. I would refrain
from dealing with State insurance in the colony establishing it, but if that colony extends its operations to 30
other colonies, I do not see why it should not be treated like an ordinary company.
The CHAIRMAN: As a matter of procedure, Mr. Walker wishes to make no exceptions at all. He therefore
proposes to strike out all the words after "insurance."
Mr. HIGGINS: Of course, if it will help him to have the question discussed, so long as it is understood
that my amendment is to be submitted, I am quite agreeable. 35
The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that you cannot do that afterwards.
Mr. HIGGINS: Well, I must press it then.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: I might point out that those who are desirous of striking out the words might do
so without proposing that some other words be inserted. It would then leave a blank to be afterwards filled.
Mr. HIGGINS: I agree to that. 40
The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Higgins proposes to strike out the word "including," with the view of inserting
something else.

92
p92 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. FRASER: I do not quite understand what this will lead us to.
The CHAIRMAN: It will lead to a blank which the Committee mayor not fill up.
Mr. KINGSTON: I understand that if the word "including" is struck out Mr. Higgins will afterwards move
to insert:
Excluding State insurance within State limits. 5
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then if you propose to put in the words, that means striking out the lot.
Mr. FRASER: I am more in favor of striking out the whole lot.
HON. MEMBERS: Then vote against it. Mr. FRASER: I am anxious that others should do so as well as
myself.
HON. MEMBERS: We will. 10
Mr. HIGGINS: I think my friend is under a misapprehension as to this. I am limiting insurance matters for
the Federal Parliament to have control over. I propose to exclude certain matters from federal control. The
expression then will be to the effect that the Federal Parliament is to have power to make laws for insurance,
but it is not to have power to make laws as to insurance effected within the limits of a colony by that colony.
Then I think that my friend will be in favor of my view that the word "excluded" ought to be inserted. 15
Mr. WALKER: I am sufficiently old-fashioned to consider that insurance is a business, and I therefore
want law to apply to all insurance companies, whether State insurance companies or otherwise. I intend to
vote against any amendment.
[start page 782]
Amendment-striking out all words after "insurance"-agreed to. 20
Mr. HIGGINS: I now move:
To insert "excluding State insurance not extending beyond the limits of that State."
Amendment agreed to; sub-section, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE
25
QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER: We have large areas of land, the price of which, the value they are to the State
Governments, and the extent to which population is settled on them, and to which production is encouraged,
depend on the power of the State to grant these bounties. The practical advantage in leaving the States free in 30
these matters is sufficiently great to justify us in departing from some of that scientific accuracy which some
hon. members-at least on this occasion, though not on others-have urged upon us.
Mr. DEAKIN: Perhaps it would be the simplest course if I were given leave to move to insert in line 30-
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go back.
Mr. BARTON: If we put it in line 38, we can authorise you, sit, to go back and make the consequential 35
amendments, as we did with regard to the words States Assembly and Senate.
The CHAIRMAN: I will put it to the Committee, and if they are unanimous, we can go back.
Mr. REID: I was going to make a suggestion which might remove all these difficulties about the mining
matter. Supposing we put in the word "trade" in front of the word bounties in line 38, that would clearly
exempt the mining industry. 40
Mr. BARTON: Has that word any well-known technical meaning?

93
p93 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr REID: It will mean a bounty with the object of promoting trade, which would be export, or
import, or local consumption. Clearly no one can consider such an expression as prohibiting a bonus
for the development of the mining industry. The expression "trade bounty" covers all we want in this
clause; it is used as a general expression covering every bounty on an object of trade. I quite see the difficulty
about mining and other industries of the kind, and I shall be quite agreeable to the insertion of any words to 5
make the provision clear.
Mr. SYMON: I think neither of these amendments will carry out the objects of the movers. They are not
clear.
Mr. REID: There is nothing clear about it.
Mr. SYMON: If we put in "trade" before "bounties," it does not, to give a concrete instance, include the 10
power of Victoria to give large bounties on the export of coal.
Mr. REID: That would be a trade bounty surely?
Mr. SYMON: You do not wish to exclude that?
Mr. HIGGINS: Oh, no.
Mr. SYMON: If you aim at giving bonuses for mining discoveries and purposes of that kind, it will be 15
very much better to secure it by way of a proviso, either here or at the end of the clause, as suggested by Mr.
Kingston, than to do it as has been suggested; as it would give rise to a great deal of ambiguity, involving
much difficulty in interpretation. I cannot see what possible gain you get by putting in the words "wares and
merchandise." That is simply an amplification of the word "goods." Therefore, what I suggest to my hon.
friend to do is to propose what he wants done as an exception, and then in dealing with that exception we 20
might have other matters in view. I would suggest the use of language that would cover our wishes. To put in
"wares and merchandise" is to use language already covered.
Dr. COCKBURN: I have already twice called attention to the importance of this [start page 851] matter,
once in the Convention and once in this Committee. It is all very well to provide for the further
development of our mining industry, but it is also necessary to provide for the development of other 25
industries; and I feel that if we give the sole power of granting bounties to the Federal Parliament we shall
practically abolish the giving of bounties altogether. I cannot imagine a case in which the Federal Parliament
would grant a bounty. Unless those who advocated a bounty in the Federal Parliament were able to point to
some part of the Commonwealth where a similar bounty has been given with success, it would have no
chance of being carried. I think this matter of granting bounties should be a concurrent power, to be exercised 30
by the Federal Parliament if it chooses to do so, and to be exercised also by the State Parliaments. I propose:
That at the end of this sub-section the words be added, "If in the opinion of the Inter-States Commission
they derogate from equality of trade."
Sir GEORGE TURNER: We may not have an Inter-States Commission.
Dr. COCKBURN: Then if we do not, the clause may be recommitted. I am sure that Sir George Turner 35
and the other hon. members who come from Victoria will see the importance of this, because Victoria has
earned a debt of gratitude in this respect from the whole of Australia. Victoria has really led the way in
Australia, and has shown what a good influence may be exercised by the judicious granting of bounties.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Are we justified in doing that with a uniform tariff?
Dr. COCKBURN: Yes; I think there are many cases in which the granting of a bounty will not interfere 40
with equality of trade.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 45
Dr. COCKBURN: I am quite willing to do that, because I can see quite well that the industry must start in
some locality where the conditions are specially favorable [start page 852] for the industry. It would be at
first a purely local matter, and the Federal Parliament or Inter-States Commission would recognise that. They

94
p94 29-7-2014
A 1
st
would say: "This is an industry which may or may not become general, but at present it affects only those
who are so striving to encourage it." As long as the various States have to bear the expense I do not see
why the federal authority should prevent assistance being given to pioneers. The pioneers of an
industry should be assisted in the first instance because they are making a road on which everyone has
the right to travel. To the pioneer who starts an industry the reward of his efforts is a reward, not only 5
to him personally, but to all who choose to travel on the road he has made. Unless the States have the
power to encourage this pioneering work there will be a great limitation put upon the development of
various industries.
The CHAIRMAN: I must ask Mr. Barton if he wishes his amendment put. If he does, I will withdraw it in
favor of Mr. Reid's amendment, which comes first. 10
Mr. BARTON: I think Mr. Reid's has only been a suggestion. I really think what has been suggested
already is the best way of meeting the difficulty-goods, wares, or merchandise."
Mr. DEAKIN: I am afraid that helps us very little.
Mr. BARTON: It helps us to some extent.
Mr. DEAKIN: Do you not think, although it might not be properly expressed, that the idea suggested by 15
Dr. Cockburn might be applied, namely, if there is to be an Inter-State Commission that that Commission
should be given power on certain principles to offer State bounties, if it does not derogate from freedom of
trade or give any undue advantage to a particular State?
Mr. BARTON: I should say that Dr. Cockburn's proposed amendment is one which I would ask the
Convention not to entertain. Of course, we may or may not have an Inter-State Commission. I think we shall. 20
But the amendment will have no effect unless we have an Inter-State Commission; in point of fact, it will
become mere surplusage then. I think it would be a mistake to propose to hand over this question to be
decided by an Inter-State Commission, because the Commission has first to see that the offering of trade
bounties on productions for export will not derogate from freedom of trade. Although I am a protectionist, I
see clearly that the offering of these bounties by the various States must be a derogation from freedom of 25
trade, and I do not think it should be handed over to any authority, but this Constitution itself, to proclaim that
there shall be freedom of trade from the establishment of the Constitution. Unless we can say that there are
bounties which are not practically protective, we have no business to consent to an amendment handing over
the decision of this question to another authority.
Mr. SYMON: If we are to make exemptions, where are we to stop? 30
Mr. BARTON: If it is to be left to the decision of the Inter-State Commission, whose chief business is
to regulate commerce, I think it would be taking away first from those who make the Constitution, and
afterwards from the Federal Parliament, the power of deciding for themselves on such questions.
Mr. PEACOCK: The hon. member Mr. Barton has put the view better than I could do it. I think the feeling
of the whole of the people of Australasia in regard to the need for Federation is due to their desire for 35
freedom of trade between the whole of the States. Whilst I am a protectionist, I do not think we could follow
the advice of Dr. Cockburn, for if we did we would be placing on the Inter-States Commission the duty of
deciding upon the policy to be adopted. I am only a layman-another poor layman!-interfering and
causing trouble.
[start page 853] 40
Mr. ISAACS: Hardly a layman now after the distinguished part you took on the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. PEACOCK: The matter is perfectly clear, and we are all practically unanimous on the point over
which we have spent an hour's talk, that the Federal Parliament should have the power of dealing with the
tariff and bounties, while every man in this Convention is of the same opinion concerning existing contracts, 45
which ought to be preserved for the reasons given by Mr. Barton. As we are all agreed that there should be
no interference with the assistance given to gold mining, it would be far better for our legal friends to
give us a sub-clause dealing with this point. We are all practically agreed upon what we want. In
Victoria there has been a great deal of agitation over the duty on coal. If Federation is to be an
accomplished fact, and if power is left to the local Parliament to give encouragement to the coal 50

95
p95 29-7-2014
A 1
st
industry by promoting our railway system through offering reduced rates, that would be an
interference with the policy. That would be thoroughly wrong, and would give a great deal of trouble.
Mr. BARTON: The question of mining for gold or silver does not affect "goods, wares, or
merchandise."
END QUOTE 5
.
QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one who 10
is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a
definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."
Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-Why not?
Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not. 15
Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of a
corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.
[start page 1783]
Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation.
Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I 20
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is 25
admitted to political rights at the will of the Commonwealth, and upon such terms as
the Commonwealth may impose. Every person who has rights as a member of the
Commonwealth must be a citizen either of some state or some territory. It is only by
virtue of his citizenship of a state or of a territory that he has any political rights in
the Commonwealth. 30
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: As far as I can gather from this clause and the clause of 1891, it seems to me to refer to 35
any future legislation on the subject:
The State shall not impose tonnage dues.
[start page 1003]
The question of whether existing legislation would be invalidated would depend, first, upon whether
the dues were an infringement of the equality of trade throughout the Commonwealth, and next upon 40
whether the Commonwealth passed a law which-if it were in the province of the Commonwealth to past; it-
was in conflict with the law of the State, in which case, to the extent of the difference between the laws, the
law of the Commonwealth would prevail if section 98 were passed. It deals only with future legislation, I
think. but these tonnage dues may incur a prohibition if we find that they are a system of taxation,
because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to raise funds by any method of taxation. If 45
the method of carrying out that power were found to be in conflict with the law of the State, the law of
the Commonwealth would prevail. We have no provision for the Commonwealth taking over harbors or
harbor works, and it may be a question for consideration whether the Commonwealth, as it has power to
legislate on other subjects relating to the regulation of commerce and trade and so on, should not take over
harbor works too. That is what, on the face of it, seems to me to be the effect of the clause. 50
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think these tonnage dues must be excepted if the Parliament is to take over harbors.
Tonnage dues are simply payment for services rendered, and they do not practically come under the system
of taxation at all. They are levied for something done. If they are not excepted great trouble will ensue,

96
p96 29-7-2014
A 1
st
especially in regard to corporations. Is that System referred to by Sir George Turner administered by a
Minister of the Crown?
Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.
Mr. MCMILLAN: Does it apply then? These. are dues paid by the State as a State, but the case mentioned
is one of a corporation, in which there is a payment for services rendered. Tolls are exacted for the services, 5
call them dues or wharfage rates or whatever you like; they are the same in essence.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: If we do not guard against it corporate bodies may evade the Act, and the State
may appoint corporations to do work so as to evade it.
Mr. MCMILLAN: Something will have to be done or great trouble may ensue.
Mr. BARTON: With reference to the question of wharfage rates, members will recollect that the United 10
States Constitution contains a prohibition against the State levying tonnage duties without the consent of
Congress. It has been decided in the case of the Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S., 559:
A city or town on a navigable river may exact a reasonable compensation for the use of the wharf which it
owns without infringing the constitutional provisions concerning tonnage taxes or regulations of commerce.
That would appear to be rather in favor of the exemption of the harbor trust. 15
Mr. HENRY: It is within my own knowledge that there are Marine Boards in Australia, at all events in
Tasmania, worked as State departments. They are nominee bodies with a Minister practically at their head.
Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?
Mr. HENRY: The Customs officers collect the wharfage and tonnage dues, and they pass into the hands of
the Government. I would like to ask Mr. Barton how it would operate in cases where the tonnage rates vary at 20
different ports in Australia? We might have one harbor with a particular rate and another with double or
treble that rate, so that we would not have an equality of trade. This is one of the difficulties which Mr.
Barton. and others, in considering this matter, should have placed before them. In this clause we are going to
hand to the Federal Government the right to legislate with regard to tonnage dues, and it is desirable that we
should know precisely what we [start page 1004] are doing and how it is going to affect the various harbor 25
trusts and marine boards.
Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we have altered
the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that used to prevail in the
the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George
IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think those referred to here were the same in the 30
United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not, the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be
charges for services performed. For instance, a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a
means of recouping themselves the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a wharf
and have they not a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost for the use of a
wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose of rendering it more 35
adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are left out any tonnage due which is
not a charge for services performed would be an impost interfering with the freedom of trade and intercourse,
and would come under section 86; that is to say, as soon as uniform duties have been imposed, trade and
intercourse shall be absolutely free, If they interfere they could only do so so far as they are of the nature of
taxes. If they are only charges for services performed, as I explained in connection with clause 83, then there 40
can be no objection to them. because charges for use of a wharf are much in the same position as charges of
the post office authorities for the carriage of letters; they are payments for services. If that view is taken I
shall offer no objection to it.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the hands of the 45
State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference with the freedom of trade
and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment for services performed is not handed over-
the mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade and intercourse. In

97
p97 29-7-2014
A 1
st
such cases as that, mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade or
intercourse. I think we may well accept that view and leave out the words:
Impose tonnage dues or.
I move that they be left out.
END QUOTE 5

QUOTE
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS (Victoria)[9.29]: Before my hon. and learned friend moves his amendment, I want
to substitute the word "twenty-five" for the word "twenty," in line 4 of the paragraph. The object of the clause 10
is to prevent individuals making a personal profit out of their public positions; and, following the general
exemption, the clause goes on to say that the prohibition is not to extend to an agreement made by an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty persons, if the agreement is made for the general
benefit of the company. In Victoria, by recent legislation, there is what is called a proprietary company-that is
to say, a private individual having a business may incorporate his company. It is really a private concern or 15
firm, and as long as it does not exceed twenty-five shareholders, he can have many of the benefits and escape
a good many of the liabilities of incorporated companies.
Mr. GLYNN: How does it prevent dummying?
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: It does not prevent it; I want to guard against it. They are called companies,
but they are really, in the majority of cases at all events, private concerns. 20
Mr. WALKER: One-man companies!
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: They are really one-man companies. I can understand the case of a person in
Victoria who is a member of the federal parliament, who would escape if the word "twenty" remains, by
floating his business into a proprietary company not exceeding twenty-five persons. He would be able to
contract with the Government, and have no disability. If we extend it to twenty-five persons it covers every 25
other colony and Victoria as well.
The Hon. S. FRASER (Victoria)[9.32]: There is no virtue in numbers. I do not object to twenty-five; I only
say there is no more virtue in twenty-five than in twenty. A man may have thousands and tens of thousands of
pounds in a company of twenty-five, twenty-six, or thirty, or more persons, and he may have a very small
interest indeed in a company of twenty. That, however, would not in the slightest degree influence me one 30
way or the other. It is impossible to draw the line. A man may be the proprietor of a paper company. He may
not be able to sell one shilling's worth of paper to the Government, and yet his interest may be infinitesimally
small. If we fix the number at twenty-five instead of twenty, it may be on a par with our colonial acts. If
we go the full length, we ought to exclude bank shareholders who deal with the Crown through the
departments. We cannot draw a hard and fast line in cases like this. If we did, the result would be all 35
kinds of complications.
[start page 1024]
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.34]: I hope we shall amend the clause so as to
make the provision something real, instead of the sham and farce it is under existing legislation. I think
we can provide against abuse of the provision which occurs every day in connection with colonial 40
legislatures. At present we have in various colonial constitutions this exemption in favour of incorporated
companies. What is the result? A private individual who is a representative cannot sell a bag of flour to a
government. He cannot, if he is in parliament, contract for the insertion of advertisements in the newspaper of
which he is the proprietor, although there may not be more than 5 or a few shillings involved. On the other
hand, if the business is big enough to warrant him in floating it into a company, although he practically 45
retains the whole interest himself, he can engage in business arrangements with the government involving
hundreds and thousands of pounds. I know of cases in our own legislature, I make no complaint of the action
of those who have been concerned in the formation of these companies. I believe they have done good work
which has profited the government, and they have every reason to be proud. But I say that the thing in its
present condition is absolutely indefensible. We are "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." Hundreds 50
of thousands of pounds in connections with government work go into the pockets, properly, of government
contractors who are members of parliament, who are protected through the formation of their businesses into

98
p98 29-7-2014
A 1
st
limited companies. Now, ought that to be so? Surely we cannot justify the continuance of a thing of that sort.
Knowing the way in which it is abused, is it not honest either to strike out all limitation, or, at the least, to
provide so that the existing condition of affairs shall not be continued, when you catch the smaller man who
is not worth catching, and let the big one go free whose operations ought to be dealt with? Under these
circumstances, I shall be found supporting the amendment moved by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, or any other 5
amendment which will make the thing a substantial reality and not a delusion and a snare. I understand the
hon. member, Mr. Glynn, proposes that where there is a substantial interest retained by the member of
parliament in the government contract, whether he acts directly or through the medium of an incorporated
company, the same provision shall apply, and he should be penalised and the thing prohibited. We ought not
allow a thing to be done indirectly to a great extent which we prohibit when it is done directly in a much less 10
and important degree. The amendment of the hon. member, Mr. Glynn, seems to me to deal with the matter
An HON. MEMBER: What is that amendment?
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: It proposes to take away the benefit of this exemption from companies
in which a member of parliament holds a substantial interest-say one-twentieth of the whole concern. I should
be prepared to go for the striking out altogether of this exemption. 15
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: So would I!
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: If the hon. gentleman will take the sense of the Convention on the
point-
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The right hon. gentleman would make the limitation more stringent; I
would make it less stringent! 20
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: The hon. member would allow all these arrangements between the
member of parliament and the federal government to go on, of course taking some care that they were made
public. I am not at present prepared to do that, though certainly that [start page 1025] position would be much
more logical than penalising the private individual, and exempting the public company-striking at the small
transactions, and winking at the large ones. I should like to see the exemption in favour of a company struck 25
out, and, if anything of that sort is moved, I shall be found supporting it.
Mr. HIGGINS: Suppose the federal government keeps some money at a bank, what about the
shareholders of the banking company?
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: You cannot define the nature of the transactions; but it seems to me
that it is just as possible to make arrangements which you ought not to make with banking companies as with 30
other companies-arrangements in connection with the handling of money and the depositing of public cash.
No doubt arrangements may be made profitable to the state and profitable to the bank; but I think it is a pity
that huge transactions of this sort should be going on when any member of parliament is interested in them to
any considerable extent. You would not allow it if it were the case of a member of parliament who was
the sole proprietor of a business trading in his own name. Why then should you allow it when it is done 35
through the medium of a company in which the member of parliament may retain, practically, the whole of
the interest? Under these circumstances, if there be an opportunity-I do not propose to move in the matter
myself-to strike out the whole of the exemption in favour of an incorporated company, I shall support the
proposal. I would support anything which would have the tendency, which I believe the amendment of my
friend, Mr. Glynn, will have-that of limiting these exemptions, and preventing persons from doing indirectly, 40
through the medium of an organisation, that which they cannot do directly. That which by the general
provisions of this clause is intended to be prohibited in the case of private individuals ought to be in all cases
prohibited when members of parliament are substantially concerned.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[9.41]: I think it inexpedient to allow members of
parliament to have any contractual relations which might suggest to any one that their position might 45
be impure. But all these precautions which have been taken from time to time arose when things were not
done in the broad light of day in the way in which they now are. Nowadays everybody knows something
more about every one else's business, unfortunately, than he does about his own. I think it is scarcely
necessary that, with the great publicity which we enjoy through the medium of the press, and of which we are
all so proud, the publicity which is given to the concerns of all of us, that we should surround ourselves with 50
precautions which operate as a limitation upon the operations of the government rather than produce as a
result, the purity of members. As a matter of fact a coach and four can be driven through this act of
parliament, as it can be through all acts of parliament with similar provisions. In making any provision of

99
p99 29-7-2014
A 1
st
this kind, you add to the original offence the further offence of duplicity, in that persons do their dirty work
through other persons. There is some nominal contractor who is put up-the real motive power being
concealed. And so things will go on, and your acts of parliament will become a perfect sham in their working.
They will prevent no dishonesty and will become objects of scorn to the whole community. Now, I say that,
at a time when we had not so much publicity, when it was thought good enough to look after one's own 5
affairs, and not to bother so much about the affairs of other persons-
END QUOTE

Before reading on it should be understood that unlike the US constitution the (Australian)
Framers of the Constitution regarding the constitution Bill included specifically the 10
discrimination permitted within what is now s51(xxvi). However thewy specifically excluded
Aboriginals as a race to prevent any discriminatory legislation against them by the
commonwealth of Australia. Fancy a law against Aboriginals that on a constitutional basis
AUTTOMATICALLY robs them of their citizenship! Yet the con-job 1967 referendum
regarding s51(xxvi) precisely achieved this! 15

QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I shall also support the amendment of Dr. Quick, and I trust that it will
be carried. I cannot conceive that in the adoption of legislation on this subject Parliament would do aught else 20
than make the definition uniform and of general application. If there was any necessity for making that clear,
the insertion of the words "uniform citizenship of the Commonwealth" would accomplish that, but I hardly
think it is necessary. I am impressed with the importance of taking power as occasion arises to define
what shall constitute citizenship of the Commonwealth; and the Bill at present is altogether deficient in
regard to giving any power to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate on this subject. It seems to me 25
it is a very difficult matter, and one with which we should not attempt to deal here, but rather should refer it
to those who, when necessity arises to adopt some legislation on the subject, will have all the facts before
them, and may reasonably be supposed to be able to make the best provision for the purpose in connexion
with the subject. My honorable friend (Mr. Glynn) referred to the principle which he said obtained, I think, in
Germany, where only native-born Germans, or those who are naturalized in the empire, are admitted to the 30
privileges of citizenship. I asked in the course of his remarks how would that apply to citizens of the
Commonwealth. It is a very difficult thing to deal with. If you provide that only those shall be citizens of the
Commonwealth who were born in it or have been naturalized, you will undoubtedly be putting too strict a
limitation on citizenship. It would be simply monstrous that those who are born in England should in
any way be subjected to the slightest disabilities. It is impossible to contemplate the exclusion of 35
natural-born subjects of this character; but, on the other hand, we must not forget, that there are other
native-born British subjects whom we are far from desiring to see come here in any considerable
numbers. For instance, I may refer to Hong Kong Chinamen. They are born within the realm of Her Majesty,
and are therefore native-born British subjects.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Are British treaty ports British territory? 40
Mr. KINGSTON.-Hong Kong is undoubtedly a British possession, and a Hong Kong Chinaman is
undoubtedly a native-born British subject. Thus, honorable members will see what difficulties might arise if
the privileges of citizenship of the Commonwealth were extended to all British subjects. If that were done,
we should be landed in a difficulty against which it is well to provide. I think the very best, thing under all the
circumstances is to do-what is recommended by Dr. Quick, and give to the Federal Parliament power to, 45
legislate on this subject as occasion arises. I have no fear whatever but that they will make wise provisions on
the subject-provisions uniform throughout the Commonwealth-for extending to all British subjects those
privileges which they ought to possess, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the Commonwealth.
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would like to point out to Dr. Quick that he proposes to give a
power to the Commonwealth to legislate in regard to a matter which is not mentioned from the beginning to 50
the end of the Constitution. The word "citizen" is not used from beginning to end in this Constitution, and it
is now proposed to give power to legislate regarding citizenship.
[start page 1761]
Mr. KINGSTON.-It was in the Bill.

100
p100 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. OCONNOR.-There is no portion of the Bill which gives any right of citizenship, or points out what
citizenship is.
Mr. HIGGINS.-The word "citizen " occurred in clause 110, although it is now struck out.
END QUOTE
5
For clarification unlike in the USA where citizenship is derived from Federal laws, the framers of
the Constitution held that citizenship is a State power and this AUTOMATICALLY result in
being a Australian citizen, being a political right and has absolutely nothing to do with
nationality as a British Subject.
10
Indeed the following references may underline this also:

The proceedings before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 resulted that the appeals
were upheld unchallenged by the commonwealth including the following submissions;
15
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
The Defendants submits, that Australian citizenship can only be obtained by obtaining
State citizenship, as it is not a nationality, but has to deal with being a recognised State
citizens where one AUTOMATICALLY then obtain Australian citizenship
(Commonwealth citizenship which includes franchise. Because lawyers require to make an 20
Oath of alliance when seeking to be admitted to the BAR to practice, which now is to a
LEGAL FICTIONAL Queen of Australia (as set out further in this ADDRESS TO THE
COURT), while being a Subjects of the British Crown, (as also set out further), then there is a
clear conflict for any judge to deal with this matter which would in effect involve his/her own
personal legal position if qualified to be a judge of this Court. Albeit judicial officers may not be 25
aware that their true constitutionally nationality is and remain to be British nationals and so any
Oath of alliance to a LEGAL FICTIONAL Queen of Australia would be a conflict.
Where the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill ousted Heather Hill of being a member of
parliament upon the basis that she was having alliance to a foreign Queen, then as set out further
in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT, the same applies to all other persons, including judicial 30
officers, who by birth (including all those persons born within the Commonwealth of Australia)
or by naturalization are in fact subjects of the British Crown.

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 35
are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of 40
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
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. 45

Again;
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British
Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.

101
p101 29-7-2014
A 1
st

The High Court of Australia deriving its judicial powers within the Constitution
(Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)) cannot go beyond what is
embedded in the Constitution, hence the constitutional problem exist that judicial officers are
constitutionally (by birth or naturalization) subjects of the British Crown but wrongly 5
excluded by the Sue v Hill decision as being deemed to be by this having alliance to a foreign
Monarch.
In view that by the Sue v Hill ruling the effect is that all judicial officers within the
Commonwealth of Australia then are having alliance to a foreign Monarch then none of the
judicial officers (including those of the High Court of Australia) could possibly determine their 10
own status as only the Privi Council could do so.
As set out further in this document Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution was provided for by
the British Parliament to naturalize aliens to become British nationals, and it never included
any purported Australian nationality. The High Court of Australia has no constitutional
powers to amend the Constitution as to purport this subsection 51(xix) has a different meaning 15
then intended by the Framers of the Constitution, and hence all persons born in the
Commonwealth of Australia and those naturalized are and remain subjects of the British
Crown with their alliance to the British Monarch. As also set out extensively further in this
ADDRESS TO THE COURT, no one can have alliance to two Monarchs and therefore any
Oath that purports to be to a Queen of Australia is a disqualification to serve as a judicial 20
officer. With laws (legislation) now being enacted under the name of Queen of Australia then
all laws so enacted are constitutionally ULTRA VIRES and so without legal force. This applies
also to Proclamations and writs.

The Defendant submits, that for this also the Proceedings are permanently stayed, so the 25
constitutional issues are to be sorted out by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
as to if this Court can invoke legal jurisdiction and if there is any judicial officer of any Court in
the Commonwealth of Australia who in fact is qualified to hear the case, or that by their Oath
of alliance to the LEGAL FICTION Queen of Australia they have all disqualified
themselves from being a judicial officer to hear and determine matters. 30

The Defendant submits, that the same applies to any lawyer seeking to prosecutor this case for
the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Those who did not make an Oath of alliance to the LEGAL FICTION Queen of Australia 35
still have the problem that they are faced with a Court system that now purportedly (Sue v Hill)
operates under a LEGAL FICTION Queen of Australia and as such the conflict remains to
exist.

This ADDRESS TO THE COURT to some extend has quoted the intentions of the Framers of 40
the Constitution and the true meaning of citizenship including Commonwealth citizenship
(Australian citizenship) and how one obtain it. Including the various references of Australian
citizenship under the British nationality! It is the Sue v Hill judgment that has thrown it all in a
chaos where the High Court of Australia purported that Australian citizenship is a nationality
where in fact no such constitutional powers ever existed, in deed specifically was stated not to 45
exist. Where then nevertheless the Sue v Hill judgment prevents a British national to sit in the
parliament, contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution then it equally applies to
all other members of parliament and any judicial officers who unbeknown to themselves are in
fact British nationals.
50

102
p102 29-7-2014
A 1
st
In my 30 September 2003 published book (Of which 4 copies were provided that day to the High
Court of Australia Melbourne Registry, and a further 4 copies on 3 October 2003);

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed. 5
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

I did set out then that with those who had joined Pauline Hanson One Nation were in fact
members regardless of what was stated otherwise on the flip side of their membership card.
Subsequently, in November 2003, the Court of Appeal precisely used this to overturn Pauline 10
Hanson and David Ettridge convictions.

Because the Commonwealth of Australia was specifically denied to define/declare citizenship by
the Framers of the Constitution then the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES,
for so far it purports to define/declare citizenship and by this all persons natural born in the 15
Commonwealth of Australia and those naturalized within the powers of subsection 51(xix) of the
Constitution are and remain in fact British nationals. By the, albeit ill-conceived judgment of
Sue v Hill therefore are deemed to be under an Oath of alliance of a foreign monarch. All
judgments handed down in the name of the Queen of Australia therefore are a legal nullity.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 20

As was made clear by Mr quick;
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 interfering with our 25
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.
Therefore, the Constitution never provided any constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of
Australia to legislate as to CITIZENSHIP. 30
As the Commonwealth of Australia was provided with powers within Subsection 51(xix) of the
constitution to naturalize aliens to become British nationals and the Nationalization Act
was enacted after Federation then clearly the powers to naturalize an alien to become a British
national is not diminish. In 1948, the Federal parliament then replaced the Naturalization Act
with the Australian citizenship Act 1948 by this STEALING the legislative powers of the 35
States states in regard of citizenship by purporting that there was an Australian citizenship as
an Australian nationality.
Barton 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. 40

If the Commonwealth of Australia never had any constitutional powers to declare/define
citizenship then what is the meaning of the Certificate of Australian Citizenship realty?

If Australian citizenship is purported to be Australian nationality then this must fail as Subsection 45
51(xix) provided constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to naturalize aliens

103
p103 29-7-2014
A 1
st
to become British nationals! Without any Section 128 referendum this cannot be changed to
some purported Australian nationality.
We either have a Constitution or not! We use it as was intended by the framers of the
Constitution, modified as have been provided for by the successful referendums or we have no
constitution at all and no federation exist! 5

In view that the British parliament declared Australians to be foreigners can this then alter the
application of the constitution, one may ask?

Constitutional law cannot be amended by mere implication but must be amended by appropriate 10
legislation. In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section
128 exclude the British Parliament to amend the constitution as it can only be amended by the
consent of the people, as expressed by a Section 128 referendum. Hence, regardless if the British
parliament did or didnt pass legislation to declare Australians foreigners the only way to
resolve the matter was and remains to have the Constitution amended to allow the 15
Commonwealth of Australia to naturalize aliens to become Australian nationals.

END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 20
The 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, a Dutch national, Frenchman, German or else they are all citizens of the
European Union 25
Citizenship is not limited to the nationality of the person but by the territory in which the person
resides that forms part of the European Union.
No one could dream of the European Union to become some Monarchy, Republic or Dominion.
Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia likewise cannot be a Monarchy, Republic or
Dominion. It is a federation out of the States. 30
The States themselves can perhaps become independent in time and then assume to become a
Republic or Monarchy but not while they remain dominions. If the states cannot become
Monarchies or Republics in the current climate then their Agent, so to say, the Commonwealth of
Australia hardly can take on some different constitutional position.
35
The term citizenship was not at all associated with nationality but rather covered any
subject of the Queen residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent
Australia.

The terms Australian citizen, Australian citizens , Australian citizenship, 40
Commonwealth citizens, federal 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 (now States) and the
Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
the term Australian citizenship cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be 45
an Australian nationality merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
128 of the Constitution.

13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen 50
13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens

104
p104 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Re; dual citizenship
26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen 5
31-03-1891 Re; Australian citizen
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
12-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth 10
15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizenship
Re; dual citizenship 15
24-01-1898 Re; Australian citizen
28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizens
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
Re; federal citizenship
Re; dual citizenship 25
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth 30
40
Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a case
which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from
acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under adverse
conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that state. The 45
state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or anything else-and I
am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration of
its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the
administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there is to be a clause introduced, to have
the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one modification, omitting the words-"and all 50

105
p105 29-7-2014
A 1
st
other persons owing allegiance to the Queen." That would re-open the whole question as 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-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a
citizen of the Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should 5
confine the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens
of the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment suggested
by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
And
Mr. KINGSTON.-I say we are creating a Commonwealth in which I hope there will be a 10
federal citizenship, 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 and privileges of federal citizenship.
An HONORABLE: MEMBER.-What is the meaning of citizenship?
Mr. KINGSTON.-It is not defined here, but it ought to be defined in the Constitution, or 15
else we ought to give power to the Federal Parliament to define it. And, after having
defined what shall constitute Australian citizenship 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 the
Commonwealth confers within its borders. I have the honour to come from a state which 20
has already adopted 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 the Commonwealth, 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 25
cool climate, would you allow the imposition of the absentee tax on him?
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 30
Commonwealth, but not within it. There [start page 675] should be no absentees within the
Commonwealth after federation. I do not see, how, after federation, a man can be regarded
as an absentee at Sydney when he lives in Melbourne. If we are 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 our 35
Constitution will permit us, to do everything to make it vanish quickly. It is a survival of
the old idea that there is a distinctive citizenship in a Victorian, and a distinctive
citizenship in a New South Wales man. That is the idea which I am endeavouring to
destroy by supporting the amendment of Tasmania, that Australian citizenship, and that
alone, shall be recognised in every part of the Federation. The way to secure that is to 40
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 interfere with the rights of the states, in matters which are left to them expressly, is

106
p106 29-7-2014
A 1
st
becoming quite alarming. There are a number of general words already in this Constitution
which, I fear, may be used so as to almost destroy the independent powers of legislation of
the states, with reference to every conceivable subject that they have left to them.

For the above, and what already has been placed before on file in previous proceedings the issue 5
therefore is that if the Commonwealth of Australia holds that Australian citizenship purports
some kind of Australian nationality then 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 of aliens to be made British nationals.
The problem with this is that if the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 purports to be Australian 10
nationality then this likewise is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.
If therefore the Constitution of the State of Victoria relies upon the Australian Citizenship Act
1948 as to provide State franchise then this is also ULTRA VIRES, as an the State cannot rely
upon an unconstitutional enactment.
15
If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is purporting to grant citizenship as to refer to political
rights then that too would be unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES.

If the AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP referred to in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948
in fact is and remains to mean that a person is naturalized to be a British national, then in any 20
case it is ULTRA VIRES where it purports to define/declare the nationality of any person born
within the States, as any subject born within the realm of the King (Queen) is automatically a
national and so a subject of the British Crown. Any reliance by the State Constitution to allow for
franchise based upon a unconstitutional provision in that regard also remains ULTRA VIRES.
25
It ought to be kept in mind that in 1948 most likely no one really has a slightest understanding
and perception as to what was constitutionally appropriate. Whatever was enacted at the time by
ill conceived perceptions cannot make it lawful. It remains ULTRA VIRES for so far it is
beyond constitutional powers or exceeding constitutional powers.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could put a 30
disability to any alien upon naturalization to obtain citizenship, this by legislation any race is
subjected to provided within subsection 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 a Certificate of Australian Citizenship cannot be granted to anyone. For example, since
the 1967 referendum that provides for Aboriginals to be dealt with under the race provisions of 35
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 race constitutional 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 40
nevertheless did so and so with the Racial 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 to be a judicial officer, to be a police officer, to be a Member of Parliament, 45
etc, it is having horrific consequences that 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 kind of system.

107
p107 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also relies upon the unconstitutional declaration/
definition of Australian citizenship as to provide for franchise 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 for 5
franchise!

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

1. The concept of allegiance was considered by Ormiston, J. (as he then was) in Nicholls v. 10
Board of Examiners 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 varied over the centuries in ways which it is unnecessary to discuss here.
For those reasons it is undesirable to say more about the duty of allegiance than is 15
necessary for the decision in this case. It should be observed, 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) 7 Co.
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 20
given by a subject, national or citizen. Even when an alien had virtually no rights, the
correlative right of protection by the sovereign was 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 the right of entry into the country, their duty of allegiance, when they live within 25
this country, cannot be disputed. On the other hand, I have found no authority, at least
since the Middle Ages, which suggests that the taking of an oath of allegiance creates
any new or different obligation on a resident foreign national. In making this latter
observation, I am in no way referring to those oaths which are taken as part of a
naturalization ceremony or which otherwise contain a renouncing of all other 30
allegiance, as appears in the oaths in Schedules 2 and 3 to the HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/" Australian
Citizenship Act 1948. I add that what I have said as to the status of aliens appears
applicable to all those who do not owe a general duty of allegiance and I say nothing
as to the effects of the repeal of the HYPERLINK 35
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/aa194775/" Aliens Act 1947 and
the prospective repeal of the definition of 'alien' in the HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/" Australian
Citizenship Act 1948 (Act No. 129 of 1984, HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s4.html" s.4 (2)(a)). 40
Consequently there would appear to be significant differences between the local duty
of allegiance owed by aliens or non-citizens, and that owed by citizens or those who
otherwise owe a general duty of allegiance. When Parliament amended s.5(2) of the
Legal Profession Practice Act 1958, it chose to retain the obligation to take an oath of
allegiance for those who wished to become admitted to practise, but gave a right to 45
those applicants to seek exemption from that obligation. As was pointed out by the
Chief Justice in Re Miller [1979] V.R. 381, at p.383, this appears to be a recognition
by Parliament of the importance attaching to that obligation. It is therefore neither
necessary nor desirable that any opinion should be expressed as to the right of persons
other than aliens or non-citizens to seek exemption under the amended sub-section. 50

108
p108 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The present applicant is a citizen of a foreign country and the considerations applicable
to him are not necessarily considerations applicable to citizens of this country, nor to
persons who may hold dual citizenship."
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
5
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Mr. Trenwith has said he was not at first inclined to support this amendment, and I think
that if he gives it further consideration he will feel that it is utterly unnecessary to do so, and that it is unwise
to put into the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament a power which might be likely to be exercised, as my 10
honorable and learned friend (Mr. Wise) has said, for the purpose of outlawing citizens of the state who are
citizens of the Commonwealth. Of course the Federal Parliament would not do such a thing as [start page
1763] that, and, therefore, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to put in such a power. Is there any person
whom the Federal Parliament, by virtue of this provision, could make a citizen of the Commonwealth who
would not already be a citizen of a state? You cannot do it. There is nothing to which this can possibly apply. 15
You have given the Federal Parliament power to deal with the question of aliens, immigration, and so on, to
prevent the introduction of undesirable races. Under that provision you enable the Federal Parliament to
legislate within certain limits, and in a certain direction. Under that they may, within those limits, take
away, or they may restrict, the rights of citizenship in a particular case. That is what we intend them to
do. I am not going to give carte blanche to the Federal Parliament to say who shall and who shall not be 20
citizens. The object of all who are represented here is that the Union of these states is of itself to confer
upon the citizens of the states the rights of citizens of the Commonwealth.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You may depend upon it that the states will see that this is kept up.
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the Commonwealth
will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of the Commonwealth which will 25
enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of
the Commonwealth who is not already a citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue
of it he is entitled to the citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow
different people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship. 30
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 is
by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens of the Commonwealth. Are you
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. 35
Mr. SYMON.-Then I think they ought to. The whole object of legislating for aliens is that there should
be uniformity.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They would not have that in the Federal Council.
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a 40
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual 45
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in 50
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision
and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want

109
p109 29-7-2014
A 1
st
to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it,
the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year
should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not? 5
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand 10
over our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment
will not be accepted.
Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-I think the Commonwealth should keep in its own hands the key of its
own citizenship. Some colonies are somewhat colourblind with regard to immigration, other colonies may be
somewhat deficient in their ideas as to naturalization. If we place in the hands of any state the power of 15
forcing on the Commonwealth an obnoxious citizenship, we shall be doing very great evil to the
Commonwealth. This power should be in the hands of the Commonwealth; it should itself possess power to
define the conditions on which the citizenship of the Commonwealth shall be given; and the citizenship of
the Commonwealth should not necessarily follow upon the citizenship of any particular state.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-We have provided in this Constitution for the exercise of the rights of 20
citizenship, so far as the choice of representatives is concerned, and we have given various safe-guards to
individual liberty in the Constitution. We have, therefore, given each resident in the Commonwealth his
political rights, so far as the powers of legislation and administration intrusted to the Commonwealth are
concerned. Let us consider the position. Before the establishment of the Commonwealth, each subject is the
subject of a state. After the Commonwealth is established, every one who acquires political rights-in fact, 25
every one who is a subject in a state, having certain political rights, has like political rights in the
Commonwealth. The only difference between the position before the institution of the Commonwealth and
afterwards is that, so far as there are additional political powers given to any subject or citizen, be has the
right to exercise these, and the method of exercising them is defined. So far the right of citizenship, if there
is a right of citizenship under the empire, is defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a state is, 30
without definition, a citizen of the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be applied to
a subject of the empire. I must admit, after looking at a standard authority-Stroud's Judicial Dictionary-that
I cannot find any definition of citizenship as applied to a British subject. No such term as citizen or
citizenship is to be found in the long roll of enactments, so far as I can recollect, that deal with the
position of subjects of the United Kingdom, and I do not think we have been in the habit of using that 35
term under our own enactments in any of our colonies.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You had it in the Draft Bill.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to objections from
members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is right in not applying [start page
1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to 40
their ordinary definition as subjects of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character,
inasmuch as citizens of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the
Constitution, we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a citizen or subject of
the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power conferred in these wide terms would 45
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think
the honorable member intends to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.
Mr. HOWE.-Trust to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. BARTON.-When we confer a right of legislation on the Federal Parliament we trust them to exercise
it with wisdom, but we still keep as the subject of debate the question of whether a particular legislative right 50
should be conferred on the Federal Parliament. When you give them the right then you may trust them to
exercise it fully.
Mr. HOWE.-And wisely.

110
p110 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have explained, then the best
thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing with the lives, liberty, and property of all
the persons residing in the Commonwealth, independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but
that is what the expression "Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the
consideration I have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a definition 5
in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this Constitution. He will be giving to
the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of
defining those rights even within the very narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be
worth nothing; or of extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject
living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his heels. Under the 10
Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to legislate with regard to the suffrage,
and pending that legislation we give the qualification of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is
really the sum and substance of political liberty, and we have defined that. 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 legislation that would really defeat all the 15
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 Federal Parliament."
Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of the British Empire.
Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That is a power which, with the consent 20
of the Imperial authority, has been carried into legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we
cannot do less for the Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by 25
being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by
the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
END QUOTE
30
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I hope we will not do that. I think it is far more than a question of drafting. I
think, whatever course we take, we ought to try to have the matter explained as much as possible at the
present moment. If we pass the words which my learned friend (Mr. O'Connor) has suggested, we shall be 35
raising up adversaries of the Constitution on all hands. The phrase-"the equal protection of the laws" looks
very well, but what does it mean? It was part and parcel of the 14th amendment of the American
Constitution; it was introduced on account of the negro difficulty. It is not something separate from the other
portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first volume of his work:-
The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal 40
discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to cover
discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex, or mental,
or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision shows it to have
been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If a discrimination
should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this as falling under the 45
inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly express it.
And the case itself, which was decided in 1879, shows perfectly clearly that it has no application to our
Australian circumstances. The head-note is-
1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, considered and held to be one of a series of
constitutional provisions having a common purpose, namely, to secure to a recently emancipated race, which 50
had been held in slavery through many generations, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy, and to
give to it the protection of the general government, in the enjoyment of such rights, whenever they should be
denied by the states. Whether the amendment had other, and if so what, purposes, not decided.
[start page 687]

111
p111 29-7-2014
A 1
st
2. The amendment not only gave citizenship, and the privileges of citizenship, to persons of colour, but
denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and invested Congress
with power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce its provisions.
3. The amendment, although prohibitory in terms, confers by necessary implication a positive immunity, or
right, most valuable to persons of the coloured race-the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against 5
them distinctively as coloured-exemption from discriminations, imposed by public authority, which imply
legal inferiority in civil society, lessen the security of their rights, and are steps towards reducing them to the
condition of a subject race.
Mr. HIGGINS.-It protects Chinamen too, I suppose, as well as negroes?
Mr. ISAACS.-It would protect Chinamen in the same way. As I said before, it prevents 10
discriminations on account of race or colour, whether those discriminations be by Parliament or by
administration. And in the case I referred to, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it was held by the Supreme Court that the
ordinance of the San Francisco Legislature was void, and they went on to say further, even if a legislative
provision is fair and apparently equal on the face of it, if it is so administered as to introduce this
discrimination, it will be declared void. 15
Mr. HIGGINS.-The Act itself.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; if it admits of that infringement, and if it is so interpreted by the Supreme Court of the
state as to mean that such a discrimination may be introduced, though not necessarily, it will be held to be
void. That will be found on page 220 of Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States. If
that is so, to put it in plain language, our factory legislation must be void. I put that one simple statement 20
before honorable members, and I would ask them how they can expect to get for this Constitution the support
of the workers of this colony or of any other colony, if they are told that all our factory legislation is to be
null and void, and that no such legislation is to be possible in the future?
Mr. KINGSTON.-That is the special clause relating to Chinese.
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes. 25
Mr. GLYNN.-Cannot there be special legislation on the subject under clause 53?
Mr. ISAACS.-I forget what was done with that clause.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Some portion of it now appears under clause 52.
Mr. ISAACS.-If it is so, the question of whether we are going to prevent factory legislation of the kind I
referred to will demand very serious consideration. Clause 52, by the transposition that has been made, will 30
afford an opportunity for discriminating legislation if the Federal Parliament choose to take advantage of it.
Mr. GLYNN.-If the Federal Parliament does interfere, why preserve state legislation?
Mr. ISAACS.-If we retain this clause as it stands, we shall have done no good by transferring a part of
clause 53 to clause 52.
Mr. GLYNN.-It is inconsistent. 35
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, because we decided in transferring the provision in clause 53 to clause 52 to leave the
states full power to legislate until overborne by federal legislation. If we retain this provision that no state is
to be permitted under any circumstances to pass such a law, then what we have decided to be concurrent
legislation becomes exclusive legislation on the part of the Federal Parliament. On that ground, and for the
reasons I have stated, I say that we ought not to insert this provision as to the equal protection of the laws. 40
That is a phrase that at once commands approbation, but when it comes to be practically applied it raises up
almost insuperable difficulties. With regard to the other part of the clause, about due process of the law, there
is an equal difficulty. I understand that Mr. O'Connor proposes to introduce that portion. What necessity is
there for it? Under our state Constitutions no attempt has ever been made to subject persons to
penalties without due process of law. 45
[start page 688]

112
p112 29-7-2014
A 1
st
That provision was likewise introduced into the American Constitutions to protect the negroes from
persecution, and dozens of cases have been brought in the United States courts to ascertain what was meant
by due process of law. At one time it was contended that no crime could be made punishable in a
summary way, but that in every case there would have to be an indictment and a trial by jury. That was
overruled, and it was held that you might have process by information. If we insert the words "due process of 5
law," they can only mean the process provided by the state law. If they mean anything else they seriously
impugn and weaken the present provisions of our Constitution. I say that there is no necessity for these words
at all. If anybody could point to anything that any colony had ever done in the way of attempting to
persecute a citizen without due process of law there would be some reason for this proposal. If we agree
to it we shall simply be raising up obstacles unnecessarily to the scheme of federation. I hope, therefore, that 10
Mr. O'Connor will not press his amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-The necessity for the amendments which were carried last night arose from my right
honorable friend's amendment carried the day before, which was as follows:-
The Parliament may make laws to provide for the execution and maintenance upon railways within the
Commonwealth of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and particularly to 20
forbid such preferences and discriminations as it may deem to be undue and unreasonable, or to be unjust to
any state.
An amendment has been carried upon that, as follows:-
Nothing in this Constitution shall prevent the imposition of such railway rates by any state as may, in the
opinion of the Inter-State Commission, be necessary for the development of its territory, if such rates apply 25
equally to the goods from other states. [start page 1519] Supposing that the right honorable gentleman's
amendment remains as it is, this will happen: That Parliament will legislate to forbid the discriminations or
preferences; but the protection given under Mr. Grant's amendment cannot operate until the Inter-State
Commission has been appointed.
Mr. ISAACS.-Protection! 30
Mr. OCONNOR.-Protection or exemption, or anything you like.
Mr. ISAACS.-There is a very great difference.
Mr. OCONNOR.-That is to say, the restriction of the power of Parliament to deal as it thinks fit with the
imposition of rates.
Mr. ISAACS.-But Mr. Grant's amendment is only a restriction of the power of the state to impose rates. 35
Mr. OCONNOR.-I am quite aware of that; but before Parliament can come to a conclusion as to whether a
rate is discriminating or preferential, under Mr. Grant's amendment, it must take into consideration the
question of whether, in the opinion of the Inter-State Commission, it is necessary for the development of the
territory. Before that consideration can come before Parliament there must be an Inter-State Commission to
pronounce an opinion upon it. 40
Mr. KINGSTON.-Surely not.
Mr. HIGGINS.-At all events, the protection given to New South Wales does not arise until there is an
Inter-State Commission.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly; that is another way of putting it.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Not if your construction is right, because you say there must be a commission before 45
Parliament can legislate.
END QUOTE

113
p113 29-7-2014
A 1
st

QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-Cannot Parliament legislate in the first instance? Does not the Inter-State Commission
declare an exemption afterwards? Parliament is not bound to hold its hand until the Inter-State Commission 5
deals with the question.
Mr. OCONNOR.-I did not say or intend to say that. What I say is that the full effect of Mr. Grant's
amendment cannot arise to any state until the Inter-State Commission is appointed; therefore it would be
unjust to leave to Parliament the unfettered power to deal with these rates, and, at the same time, provide no
[start page 1520] machinery by which protection could be given. 10
Mr. KINGSTON.-Hear, hear.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 15
Mr. KINGSTON.-The commission would have power to declare an exemption.
Mr. SYMON.-It might be expressed in that way. The Inter-State Commission will have a function similar
to that possessed by the High Court, but in regard to other matters. It will declare whether the rate imposed by
the state is in conflict with the legislation of the several Parliaments. If it is in conflict, there will come the
further inquiry whether it is to be exempted from the bar placed upon it by the Federal Parliament, upon the 20
ground that it is necessary for the development of the state territory.
Mr. ISAACS.-The Inter-State Commission must decide whether the rate is necessary for the development
of the state territory.
Mr. SYMON.-Yes. If that provision were not in the Constitution the matter would be left to the Parliament
of the state, whose enactments might be over-ridden by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. If by virtue of 25
the amendment agreed to last night the Inter-State Commission is now substituted, that body will inquire into
all the necessities of the case and give its certificate upon the facts. This certificate will give an immunity to
the particular rate or class of rates in connexion with which it is granted from the legislation of the Federal
Parliament.
Mr. KINGSTON.-It would bring the rate within the constitutional exception. 30
Mr. SYMON.-My object is to point out that, however defective in some [start page 1522] respects these
provisions may or may not be, there will be no conflict between the powers of the Federal Parliament and of
the state in relation to railway matters which may not be adjusted by the Inter-State Commission. This being
so, it seems to me that the introduction of the Inter-State Commission into the clause providing for this
exemption renders it necessary to make it obligatory under the Constitution to appoint the commission. It 35
would be absurd to give a protection-I call it an immunity-to the state in relation to these railway matters,
depending upon the action of an Inter-State Commission or any other body, if we did not make the creation of
such a body imperative. It seems to follow almost as a consequent amendment on what we have done that the
permissive provision in the clause should be made obligatory. When we have done this it follows that as there
is an element of policy, the existence of which no one can deny, it will be even more necessary than in the 40
case of the Federal High Court-which is not to deal with matters of policy, or matters tainted with policy, to
use the expression of another speaker-that the tribunal which we are creating should be above the breath of
political intrigue. To secure this, I think, some provision should be inserted similar to the provisions which
we have inserted in regard to the Judges of the High Court. Whatever may have been the case as the Bill left
us after the Adelaide session, it seems to be imperative now, to give effect to what has already been done, that 45
we should introduce into the Constitution provisions binding the Federal Parliament to create an Inter-State
Commission, and placing the Inter-State Commission, when created, on a level which will raise it above the
possibility of the suspicion that its judgments or actions have been in any way influenced by political
considerations.
END QUOTE 50

QUOTE

114
p114 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. OCONNOR.-I would suggest words which I think will meet the criticism of my friend (Mr. Isaacs):-
Every subject of the Queen resident in any state or part of the Commonwealth shall be entitled in any other
state or part of the Commonwealth to all the privileges and immunities to which he would be entitled if a
subject of the Queen resident in that latter state or part of the Commonwealth.
Mr. DOBSON.-Don't you want to say that a citizen shall be entitled to the privileges of the state in which 5
he resides?
Mr. SYMON.-Oh, no, that he already has.
Mr. DOBSON.-But I mean on leaving one state and going to another.
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-Take the matter of the income tax, for example. A subject from a state where
there was exemption might claim exemption in another state, although there was no exemption in the latter. 10
Mr. OCONNOR.-He could not be entitled to greater or less privileges than the inhabitants of the
state itself.
Mr. ISAACS.-Allow me to point out that the subject, although resident, we will say, in Queensland, is to
have the same privileges and immunities as if resident in Victoria. In Victoria, if he were resident, he would
have the right to claim exemption under the income tax up to a certain point. Under the proposal, although he 15
is not resident in Victoria, he is to have that exemption.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-That is the very point. My honorable friend [start page 1798] (Mr. Isaacs)
has really done more in his last few words to explain the true position of this matter than has the whole of the
rest of the debate. The sort of thing he has mentioned is exactly the sort of thing to be remedied. In the
debate, the whole question was whether any one state could impose an increased tax on the ground of 20
residence in an adjoining state. There was a consensus of opinion that a state should not do so.
Mr. ISAACS.-No.
Mr. SYMON.-That was the consensus of opinion. There was a difference of opinion, but there was a
strong feeling that that sort of thing should not prevail. Victoria ought not to be allowed to declare that an
income tax shall be twice as much on a resident of South Australia as on a resident of Victoria. Otherwise we 25
should be continuing those distinctions and what are almost alien elements which now exist between the
colonies.
Mr. ISAACS.-I am speaking of taxation for state purposes, and not for federal purposes.
Mr. SYMON.-I am speaking of the same thing. Unless you have this amendment, or the amendment as
modified by Mr. O'Connor, that state of things would prevail. Victoria might impose an income tax on its 30
own citizens of 10 per cent., and a tax of 30 per cent. on people resident in South Australia who derived
income from Victoria.
Mr. WISE.-Or attempt to impose a fine of 50 per cent. on people from South Australia who tried to buy
land in Victoria.
Mr. SYMON.-Or impose a tax on commercial travellers, as was done in New Zealand. We ought really to 35
be indebted to Mr. Isaacs for putting the point he did before us, for that is the very point we are seeking to
remedy. The remedy may be open to criticism, but that a remedy is demanded is clear.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-The effect mentioned by Mr. Isaacs is not the only effect. If it were the only
effect I would go the full length with you, and whenever we pass a law relating to absentees would make it
operate outside Australasia. 40
Mr. SYMON.-That is not the only effect.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-Then that ought to be made clear.
Mr. SYMON.-It is made clear by the amendment, which, I think, meets every case of the character, and
prevents one state from imposing disabilities on the residents of another state.

115
p115 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I would like to add that the point I placed before the Convention was only by way
of illustration of how the proposal would operate. But apply the proposal to another matter. Under the
Victorian Land Act land is selected by persons resident in Victoria only, but under the proposal before the
Convention a subject, although resident in South Australia, could claim a right to, select land in Victoria.
Mr. WISE.-Hear, Hear. Subjects would not be Victorians, but Australians. 5
Mr. ISAACS.-We are talking now of the purely state matter of selecting land for Victorian development,
and yet it is proposed that a subject is to have the same right of selecting land in Victoria wherever he may
reside.
Mr. REID.-If you attach the condition of residence in case of land selection it surely means residence on
the particular land selected. 10
Mr. ISAACS.-Under the proposal a man will be able to say he must have exactly the same rights under the
Constitution, if he did not reside in New South Wales, as if he did.
Mr. REID.-Our land laws in New South Wales have not been framed in that way.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Cannot you apply that to electoral laws as well?
Mr. ISAACS.-It may apply to electoral laws. The electoral law of a state might say that a person not 15
resident for, say, six months in New South Wales or in Victoria, should not have a right to vote, but
under this he might be held to have such a right.
[start page 1799]
Mr. WISE.-He would have to live six months in the same way in Victoria before he could vote.
Mr. ISAACS.-It may give him the same rights as a person who has lived for six months in the state. Look 20
at the wording of the provision. It states that-
Every subject of the Queen resident in any state or part of the Commonwealth shall be entitled in any other
state or part of the Commonwealth to all the privileges and immunities to which he would be entitled if a
subject of the Queen resident in the latter state or part of the Commonwealth.
These words are tremendous. 25
Mr. WISE.-But if such privileges only attach after six months' residence to a person in a colony, they
would apply to a person going into the colony.
Mr. ISAACS.-Residence in some other part of the Commonwealth is made equivalent to residence in the
state under this provision. I am afraid that it will carry the matter further than we intend to go. What has been
said regarding the absentee tax shows to me more and more the unwisdom of attempting to define these 30
things in the Constitution. I feel that we shall be landing ourselves in difficulties that we do not anticipate.
Mr. OCONNOR.-That is a different question altogether.
Mr. ISAACS.-No, it is the same thing, and this is an attempt-and it seems to me a dangerous attempt-to
constitute a definition of Commonwealth citizenship. That is really what it comes to. I do press upon the
committee once again the desirability of going back to the clause proposed by Dr. Quick. 35
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The last observation of the honorable and learned member (Mr.
Isaacs) is quite inapplicable to this proposal, because it certainly does not deal with any definition of
citizenship at all. It only prevents the discriminative laws now made by a state against the subjects of other
states. The answer to the point put before that by the honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is this: The
use of the word "resident" cannot satisfy any condition of a state law regarding a period of residence. 40
Mr. KINGSTON.-That would not touch the absentee tax.
Mr. OCONNOR.-They cannot possibly have that, because if you have a condition that there shall be
a residence of a certain period before a person can acquire a right of any kind, that period of residence

116
p116 29-7-2014
A 1
st
is required from every inhabitant of the state, and it will be equally required from an inhabitant of
another state. This proposal does not touch that question at all.
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I am inclined to think that the remarks which have just fallen from
Mr. O'Connor cut away the strength of the argument that a clause of this description would prevent an
absentee tax being imposed. I am thoroughly opposed to absentee taxes which are levied by states on the 5
inhabitants of other states of the Commonwealth, but, when it is put by Mr. O'Connor that this clause would
not meet the case where a certain period of residence is required in a colony, then it is impossible to hold that
it will exclude the operation of an absentee tax. Because what does this clause do? It provides that certain
people, unless they have been resident or have worked or spent years in a colony may be subject to this
special tax; so that it will not meet the case where a period of residence is required to prevent exemptions 10
from the tax.
Mr. SYMON.-It does not say that.
Mr. KINGSTON.-I understood Mr. O'Connor to say that it was so. Either it does not meet the case or it
does. If it does not, it has not the recommendation of abolishing the absentee tax. If it does specify a period of
residence, it is open to the objection which Mr. Isaacs has raised that it would confer an electoral 15
qualification such as is required in each state before a man can register on the electoral roll. Under these
circumstances, it seems to me very hard to decide how to vote. I want to see a common citizenship. I [start
page 1800] think that any Commonwealth Constitution which is deficient either in its definition or its power
of definition, as circumstances arise, is a mistake. We have been labouring here for some time to secure a
definition. Various definitions have been offered for consideration which seem to me to be open to a variety 20
of objections. I think, therefore, that the better plan will be to go back to the amendment of Dr. Quick, and
confer upon the Federal Parliament the power of defining, when occasion arises, what shall constitute
citizenship of the Commonwealth. I wish To be clearly understood that in any vote I shall give against the
insertion of a definition, I am not to be understood as being desirous of voting against a uniform citizenship,
but rather am I to be accredited with the desire to confer upon the highest power, at the proper time, when it 25
will have the best means of securing a proper definition, the full opportunity and authority of doing so.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 30
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I beg to move-
That the sub-section be amended by the insertion, before "fisheries," of the word "Sea"; and the omission of
beyond territorial limits."
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a 35
considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any 40
kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property, wherever it is
found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very careful, we shall get
into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed
might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
Mr. BARTON.-We were inclined to the opinion that "uniform" would not apply so as to prevent the 45
graduating of a tax. I am glad to have the suggestion from the honorable member, because the
committee will be going into the matter again.
Mr. ISAACS.-I will point out to the leader of the Convention the last words of the sub-section, and ask
whether they are necessary in view of clause 89? The words are-"No tax or duty shall be imposed on any
goods exported from one state to another." I want to point out that, though it might be thought necessary no 50
duty should be imposed on goods, it might be held possible to put a tax on persons passing from one state to
another. I should also like to know whether this provision as to navigation and shipping is necessary in view
of subsection (1)?

117
p117 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am very much myself, although I cannot say I represent my
colleagues, inclined to the opinion that the trade and commerce sub-section is sufficient without the insertion
of the words about navigation and shipping. The committee have not come to any conclusion about it, and I
would prefer to leave the matter open until we arrive at what is called the drafting stage. As to whether the
words in new sub-section (2) are necessary in the light of clause 89, a great deal might be said, and I will pay 5
the matter the best attention.
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-As to the emission of "Navigation and shipping," I hope the honorable member is
not overlooking the fact that there are many enactments requisite on the part of the colonies, in order to take
advantage of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which are very indirectly, if at all, connected with
trade and commerce, but affect in the the most important way the well being of seamen, the safety of 10
passengers, and a variety of other matters of the same nature.
Mr. BARTON.-In the United States they have been enabled to legislate on the subject under the trade and
commerce clause.
Mr. DEAKIN.-But there the interpretation of the trade and commerce clause, and in fact of the whole
Constitution, from the days of Marshall downward, has been quite as liberal as any one could expect, and 15
possibly more liberal than anything we can calculate on.
Mr. BARTON.-I might mention that this is another of those matters still under the consideration of the
Drafting Committee.
Mr. DEAKIN.-If there be any effect of sub-section (8) as a limitation on sub-section (1), words might be
added to make it clear that it was not a limitation. The sub-section in regard to navigation and shipping would 20
then continue to have effect as regards matters not connected with trade and commerce.
Mr. BARTON.-So as not to limit the construction of sub-section (1).
Mr. DEAKIN.-So as not to limit the construction of sub-section (1), and give both powers.
[start page 1857]
Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).-I would like to ask Mr. Barton whether it is intended to take 25
away the state control of fisheries on the coast by this clause?
Mr. DEAKIN.-It says "Sea fisheries."
Sir JOHN FORREST.-But sea fisheries means fishing close to the port. It would not be desirable to take
away any power from the state of legislating in regard to these kinds of fisheries. The words "beyond
territorial limits," which it is proposed to omit, are very good words. The Federal Council, under the Imperial 30
Act, has exercised the power of legislating for waters beyond territorial limits with great advantage to some
colonies. Western Australia and Queensland have both Acts of the Federal Council which have been very
useful in controlling fisheries, such as pearl fisheries, far beyond the 3-mile limit. It may probably be said that
without those words the power would be there, but I see no reason why we should not take the power.
Mr. KINGSTON.-You have no power unless it is given. 35
Sir JOHN FORREST.-We have the power-we have an Act.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Because the power is expressly given.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-The power is expressly given by the Imperial Act, and I think we ought to take
power for the Federal Parliament to legislate on matters beyond the territorial limits. I would like to ask what
object Mr. Barton has in desiring to strike out "beyond territorial limits"? 40
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have had considerable doubts about the sub-section all the time. If I
remember rightly, it is taken from the Federal Council Act. I do not think any law has been passed by that
body in connexion with the matter.
Mr. KINGSTON.-Yes, in relation to both Queensland and Western Australia.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-Yes, in regard to Queensland and Western Australia. 45

118
p118 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-The doubt I feel about the whole matter is this: What effective legislation can be passed in
regard to fisheries beyond territorial limits, except so far as that legislation relates to a commercial operation
in connexion with the catching and selling of fish? That might possibly be dealt with under the navigation
clause, or more presumably, under the commerce clause. I have a doubt as to the efficacy of this sub-section,
and whether it is absolutely necessary to give the Commonwealth any rights in this respect. 5
Mr. DEAKIN.-It is another of the powers derived from the Federal Council.
END QUOTE

It should be understood that while the States could legislate for its own internal taxation issues to
provide taxation exemption for non-for-profit (non-profit) organisations it can however not 10
dictate the Commonwealth to accept then those organisations for tax exemptions. As shown
above by the quotations the States cannot be exempted merely because they are States from
import taxes/duties therefore it would be an abnormality if the States nevertheless could exempt
corporations and non-profit organisations from taxation but not itself.
Unlike the US constitution debates, which were not covered as those by the (Australian) Framers 15
of the Constitution, we have documented evidence that taxation was to be uniform between
residents of any state.
Below the dissenting view quoted shows that any exemption of taxation is in fact a subsidy.
We must not forget that taxation is for a person (which includes a corporation, etc, as for the
Government to be abler to provide services to the community. Roads are just one of them. 20
There can be no doubt that property owners are caused to pay towards road development near
their property. Indeed, the Victorian government has as I understand it added a special tax on
properties for future road development and other infra structure. Why then should church
organisations benefitting of such services be excluded to contribute towards it.
. 25
QUOTE
Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the
Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another. 30
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this sub-section, which
puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty.
Honorable members will recollect the difficulty that arose over the construction of words equivalent to
"uniform throughout the Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has
been given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated income tax case 35
went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people according to numbers, and this point
was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of
Mr. Justice Field. I think that although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in
form" throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise about it, and
prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case, for instance, an income tax or a 40
land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between citizens of the
Commonwealth in the same circumstances. I beg to move-
That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that the following words
be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between goods passing from
one state to another." 45
I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89, prescribing free-trade among
the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods passing from one state to another would be clearly
invalid, and could not possibly be allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not to say
anything about goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently provided for,
and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax which would make a 50
difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of another state, and to prevent anything
which would place a tax upon a person going from one state to another. I beg to move-

119
p119 29-7-2014
A 1
st
That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted, with a view to
inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of states, or between
persons or things passing from one state to another."
The amendment was agreed to.
END QUOTE 5

WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNI TED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
QUOTE 10
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the
prevailing 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
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. 15
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.
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 20
whose 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 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. 25
END QUOTE

Therefore, if tax exemptions are provided for religious bodies then non-religious bodies also
should be provided with tax exemption.
Why should a group of people getting together for non-religious purposes not be entitled to the 30
same non-profit (not for profit) exclusion of taxes?
.
In my view the Commonwealth should for itself establish when an organisation can be held to be
a not-for-profit (non-profit) organisation, and so irrespective of any religious or non-religious
association. 35

A problem also is that the failure of proper controls means that so called not-for-profit (non-
profit) organisations can be a cover to collect monies for terrorism, etc. Not uncommon so called
not-for-profit (non-profit) organisations collect monies which at times in total goes to the
organisers and nothing to the benefits for which the organisation is supposed to provide for. 40
What we therefore have is a gross abuse and misuse of not-for-profit (non-profit) organisations.
I recall that there was an issue that parents who do not allow their children to be immunised then
may not be able to claim family tax benefits. Those benefits are then denied, so it was proposed,
regardless if people did so upon basis of religion.
45
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
QUOTE
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and 50
support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a 55
recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not

120
p120 29-7-2014
A 1
st
require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious
exemption to be challenged.
QUOTE
And
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml 5
QUOTE
Some 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
submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do
not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law. 10
QUOTE
And
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
QUOTE
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the 15
law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are
betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
QUOTE

20
What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can
be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any
particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person
objecting under the religious objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
neither can be required to be a religious person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as 25
the equivalent in WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the
religious objection applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone
objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific
religion mentioned.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 30

I will now quote an email I received which may indicate how badly the situation may have
developed, where tax exemptions can ensure that those involved can fund any terrorism
organisation without being held legally accountable.
In my view, religious organisations must be held accountable to their income and distribution 35
thereof. This so that the funding can be controlled.
Basically; fund some terrorism organisation and you (the non-for-profit organisation) loses
deregistration as such and end up paying taxes and be excluded from not-for-profit (non-profit)
tax exemptions in the future.
Also, a not-for-profit (non-profit) entity must prove that its own overhead cost is limited to a 40
certain percentage of monies it collects and a certain percentage is provided for community
usage. Not that most of it is paid out to directors or other high profit organisers and the public is
conned in providing funding for what really is a tax rort.
Also, many religious bodies are renting out part or all of properties for commercial purposes and
I view this should not be tax exempted as it undermines equality of law. After all tax exempted 45
entities can benefit by this to sell items for lower prices, and so under cutting competitors) selling
the same products.
Any non regulated and not controlled income system is bound to be abused and undermine
public confidence.
Moreover, any tax exemption means, as the court below didnt seem to consider, that the State 50
concerned still requires collecting the amount of taxation it requires for what is in the
Appropriation Bills. Therefore, if religious or other entities are obtaining tax exemption that say
may amount to say $25 million not having to pay taxes then this means that other taxpayers are
to have make up the shortfall by higher taxes. While services and infrastructure is still used by
not-for-profit (non-profit) organisations they do not contribute to the cost of it. 55

121
p121 29-7-2014
A 1
st
It also means that by this non-religious persons are in fact paying more taxation then that what
would be required if not-for-profit religious entities were to pay also their taxation share.

The quotations below must be understood to refer to State legislative powers of taxations,
regarding religious entities, whereas s116 of the constitution does not apply to the states but only 5
applies to the Commonwealth of Australia.

The fact that companies pay so to say a Halal food contribution, and this compel non-religious
persons to indirectly contribute to this, also must surely be of concern to any fair dinkum Aussie
It can be deemed to be no less than a form of taxation. Often a customer would not be aware of 10
this unless the package of the purchased item has been opened.
Fancy, Catholics dictating the same, there likely would be an outrage if this were to eventuate.
.
Fancy non-religious bodies to dictate that food companies must pay a certain amount of monies
to carry non-religious markings! Religious bodies would be up in their arms about this being 15
interferences to their own religious traditions, etc. Indeed, we have this with some religious
holidays that somehow now are opposed with those religious entities that have a different view.

The halal rort on Australians: paying an Islamic religious food tax
without knowing Part 1 20
QUOTE
Jim The halal rort on Australians: paying an Islamic religious food tax without knowing
Part 1 AUSTRALIAN ISLAMIST MONITOR http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/
Sunday, 29 May 2011 12:25 Muslims do no
To Andrew K.Bruce & Gail H.Daniel Bodkin and 26 More... 25
Jan 19 at 4:54 PM

The halal rort on Australians: paying an Islamic religious food tax
without knowing Part 1
30
AUSTRALIAN ISLAMIST MONITOR
http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/

Sunday, 29 May 2011 12:25
35

Muslims do not require halal food at all as they are free to eat anything that isnt deemed
haram yet increasingly ALL our food is halal. The Australian population is being ripped
off with the compliance of slaughter houses and manufacturers for they now carryout
processes which are inspected by a Muslim and a Muslim group issues a halal certification 40
certificate if it complies with sharia --- and YOU pay for this although YOU, the ordinary
Australian does NOT require your food production to comply with sharia and YOU do
NOT require halal certification. You may want to avoid this rort by avoiding halal food
BUT many immoral food manufacturers, while complying with and paying for the Islamic
certification system, lack the moral responsibility to inform the public and dont label their 45
food as halal. Australia is a SECULAR nation and we should not under any
circumstances be complying with the insane religious food laws of Islam or allowing
sharia to be enforced over us by stealth. How have food producers been coopted as
agents of Islamization and pathways to transfer an Islamic religious food tax from
unwilling consumers to Islamic groups? 50

122
p122 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Paying a religious food tax to Islamic groups:
The halal certification industry is a big money earner for certain Muslim groups and that
money is creamed in part off the Australian public. 5
An article from 2008 gives an idea of how lucrative halal certification is to Islamic
groups re The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (one of about 17 certifying
groups often linked to mosques)
(The) AFIC is the biggest Islamic umbrella organisation in the country and is made
up of dozens of representative Muslim bodies, which sit beneath the nine state and 10
territory councils. It acts in an advisory role to governments and derives most of its
income from rent on land that houses Muslim schools across the country, and the
certification of halal food. It manages an annual budget of about $20 million and
assets of about $50 million. (O'Brien, 2008 Australian)
1. Halal food is simply a religious food tax imposed by Muslims on non-Muslims. 15
2. Food prices are increased as manufacturers pass this TOTALLY
UNNECESSARY set of extra costs onto unsuspecting consumers.
3. As manufacturers show themselves as complete dhimmis ready to do Islamic
bidding, OUR freedom of choice is taken away as food all becomes halal and
more expensive. Failure to provide non-halal food is discrimination against the 20
majority (98%) of Australians.
4. Many immoral manufacturers with halal certification do NOT label their food
as halal. They are misrepresenting their product and under labelling guidelines, this
is illegal.
25
Halal Certification Authority Australia (HCAA) (Click on the image for details)
Failure to adequately label food is against the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
(CCA) (formerly known as the Trade Practices Act 1974) which contains a general
prohibition against conduct that misleads or deceives or is likely to mislead or deceive.
In my view, failing to inform people that your product is halal and royalties are being paid 30
to an Islamic group(s) is misleading and deceptive conduct particularly when many people
feel very strongly against consuming halal food! (to find this information one needs to
trawl through http://australia.gov.au/topics/business-and-industry/consumer-rights,
Consumer policy, Fair trading, Labelling.
5. Halal food IS forced Islamization as sharia law is operating over ALL 35
Australians. Sharia law has NO place at all in Australia.
The hidden yet widespread imposition of halal food is sharia by stealth and we PAY for it
both in money and in loss of our freedom and choice and indeed possibly far greater
losses to come!
Clearly Muslims have been involved in a well organised plan to take control of food 40
production.

123
p123 29-7-2014
A 1
st
*How have our food manufacturers been coopted into the service of Islam so they are
now forcing Islamic law over the Australian population when the Islamic population
is 2% in Australia and only 20% worldwide.
*Why have food manufacturers become collection agencies, collecting a religious food
tax for Islam and passing it to Islamic groups? 5
The insanity of this becomes obvious when we ask why our food production does not also
submit itself to inspection and certification from Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews,
atheists .....all others so that their respective groups also get a cut in this lucrative
practice of insuring food production satisfies your group and you get your religious food
tax creamed off everyone. 10

6. The enforcement of halal food is yet another means for Muslims to dominate
and control the worldwide economy. Halal food is marketed as pure (religiously
pure according to Islam) or healthy. There is absolutely NO reason why substances
that satisfy Islamic text and law would be particularly healthy. One only has to 15
look at the food handling practices in the Islamic world and by Muslims in the west
to see that that is NOT the case! (Read Food Jihad Sunday, 22 May 2011 05:53
Cassandra this site). As I have noted many times Islamic ideas of hygienic fall far
below ours.
Imposition of sharia: 20
To be halal the food must comply with sharia which can include many things often taken to
extremes that there has been no contact with haram substances; that meat is sadistically
slaughtered according to sharia by Muslim slaughtermen and dedicated to allah and that
meat products eg gelatine come from such slaughtered animals; that the ingredients,
method of manufacture, cleaning of equipment, packaging and storage all comply with 25
sharia. Hence inspections by Muslims examine and control the whole food production
process.
This is extremely dangerous as businesses become dependent on a limited Islamic market
and make themselves vulnerable to absolute Islamic control to keep their certification.
*Will we end up with a Muslim only workforce (non-Muslims may be considered 30
haram) as we already have killing floors built to face Mecca and halal slaughtermen must
be Muslim so ordinary Australians are locked out of jobs. This is workplace
discrimination.
*Are we going to surrender our food production to an ideology that comes with the
intention of worldwide control and the aim to force their sharia law over all? 35
Some people claim this is no different to kosher food rubbish, Jewish food is produced in
small amounts, clearly labelled, sold in separate areas of the supermarket or special shops
and not forced onto others.
Indeed Jews NEVER force their specific needs onto others while Muslims aim to force
Islam onto everyone! I have also been told its just like paying for the heart tick. What a 40
load of garbage as the heart tick does NOT emanate from a group that aims for worldwide
domination and the imposition of a barbaric set of laws! I have been told that in some
cases the production is the same so whats the problem well, now we pay Muslims for

124
p124 29-7-2014
A 1
st
inspections and certifications that WE dont want or need and, how far will it go? A look
at the joke of halal makeup (Muslim women are NOT supposed to make themselves up
unless for hubby in the bedroom, attracting males in general is a big NO, NO!) will give a
hint
A certified Halal product means that the product is produced using no haram 5
products or alcohol (including fluids used to clean equipment) in the
manufacturing process. Testing is done to ensure that there are no pork or animal bi
products used in the process. X is dedicated to developing products that only use the
finest purest Halal certified ingredients.....
We do not simply claim to be Halal, we are certified Halal by a 3rd party 10
certification body that confirms our products are suitable for Muslims to use, claims
Layla.....
In Islam, as she says, it is forbidden to use beauty products that contain questionable
ingredients, since a Muslim must be clean and pure before he or she prays.
Haram ingredients, she says, if [they] are on your body, your prayers will not be 15
accepted......
Ms. Mandi, proud for setting a new standard in Halal certified beauty, hopes to
educate people on (the) grounds of using Halal products so the consumer now has a
choice whether or not they want to RISK using Haram ingredients on their
bodies. (Muhammad 2010) 20

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc (AFIC) (click on the image for
details)
Hmm, no alcohol products used to clean equipment; even ingredients must be deemed
halal requiring more inspections and certification and more costs to YOU; and of course 25
the threat to Muslims your prayers are unacceptable if you have haram substances
presumably on or IN your body!
While Muslims demand a choice our right to choose non-halal products is ripped
away.
Someone else also said its just like giving a donation well I dont want to DONATE to 30
Islam!
Muslims seem incapable of even choosing their own food: the mind control of Islam is
absolute and growing.
Muslims seem completely incapable of deciding what food they can eat unless some imam
tells them its OK or unless they can find a halal certificate. Hence halal labelling is 35
clearly important for them as well and one wonders why some food producers HIDE their
halal certification? One also wonders how Muslims survived before this sudden rash of
halal certification took place.
Muslims have been mind-manipulated into believing their food must be certified halal
or they ---WHAT will explode, go to hell if they eat it?? Apparently they dont know 40
that before they were born allah already decided whether hed send them to hell or
not so who cares? (see *Koran 17.13-14, *Muslim Book 33, Number 6436: *Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 430: *Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 549: *Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593: *Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 546: *Muslim
book33, Nos 6390- 6408 : and many more!) 45

125
p125 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Imagine living in this insanity of Islam where Muslims look at a packet of chips in terror
---Oh, is it halal or haram?
The Muslim obsession with everything being designated halal (allowed) or haram
(forbidden) often without reason is in my view a form of insanity. While they can
indulge in this mindless insanity, it should not be forced on us. 5
In reality, Islamic law gives a clear list of what must be avoided
Reliance of the traveller: **Law j 16.1 p361 In the case of meat, it only becomes
permissible if you are certain that it has been slaughtered according to sharia ..
The case of meat is exceptional in this, since most other foods are initially
permissible, and one assumes they remain so unless one is CERTAIN something has 10
occurred which has made them unlawful.
In cases of doubt, only likely possibilities are taken into consideration ....As for
remote possibilities, taking them into consideration only leads to
BLAMEWORTHY EXTREMISM and departure from how the early Muslims
were, for the prophet was given some cheese and a cloak (by non-Muslims) and he 15
ate the one and wore the other WITHOUT considering whether they might have
mixed the former with PORK, or whether the wool came from a slaughtered or
unslaughtered animal. Were one to take such possibilities into consideration,
one would NOT find anything lawful on the face of the earth.
This is why our colleagues say complete certainty that something is lawful is only 20
conceivable about rainwater falling from the sky into ones hand.
(Ie EAT what you like as its impossible to be certain it is lawful and carrying on about it
is BLAMEWORTHY EXTREMISM)
*Law 16.2 p 362 It is permissible to eat the oryx, zebra, hyena, fox, rabbit,
porcupine, daman (a Syrian rock badger), deer, ostrich or horse. 25
*Law j 16.3 p 362 It is unlawful to eat
1) (Pork products)
2) cats or disgusting small animals that walk on the ground such as ants, flies and the
like (...the jerboa, locust and hedgehog ....are recognised as wholesome and pure)
3) predatory animals that prey with fangs or tusks ...lion, leopard, wolf, bear, 30
simians, and so forth (including the elephant and weasel)
4) those that hunt with talons... falcon, hawk, kite, crow-except for the barnyard
crow which may be eaten.
5) or the offspring of an animal permissible to eat and one not permissible to eat
such as the mule (a cross between one eaten, the horse and one not eaten, the donkey) 35
*Law j 16.4 p 363 It is permissible to eat any aquatic game except frogs and
crocodiles.
*Law j 16.5 It is unlawful to eat anything harmful such as poison, glass or earth.
*Law j 16.6 It is unlawful to eat anything impure (def e 14.1). ..It is unlawful to eat
substances which are pure but generally considered repulsive, such as saliva or 40
sperm.
(Well forget any kissing...and what about swallowing your own saliva?) PS impure
products/filth are defined in law e14.1 urine, excrement, blood, pus, vomit, wine, dogs,

126
p126 29-7-2014
A 1
st
pigs, white vaginal fluid (madhy) or discharge after urinating (wady), slaughtered but
illegal animals, unslaughtered dead animals (see allowed ones in laws above), hair...
*Law j 16.7 [you can only eat an unslaughtered dead animal if forced to do so]
Meat slaughter which has a set of its own rules will be covered in part 2.
But what we see here is that 5
a) there is a list of permissible and forbidden food which any Muslim,
incapable of deciding what they can eat for themself, can carry in their pocket for
ready reference during food purchasing.
b) Non-meat food is permissible unless you are absolutely certain that it is not
ie eat and dont worry about it! 10
The whole halal system is a rort.
Problems with the halal market:
Halal certification is a commercial market: The rort continues as certifying agencies only
have access to certain markets so if a producer wants access to many markets *do they
pay MULTIPLE halal certifiers? 15
Since some overseas countries also want to charge fees for market access you can easily
see that this is simply a rort on the dopey non-Muslims as the Muslims are providing
nothing at all they simply look and dictate and hand out a certificate but they dont
produce anything, they just charge and idiotic companies PAY and YOU pay.
Some claim this benefits Australia because we reach the great Islamic market but this is a 20
nonsense as the NON-Islamic market covers 80% of the world and hence companies
should be producing for that market so there is no need for US to be made to adhere to
sharia and to pay for the imposition of sharia and halal certification which we do NOT
want.
Let companies who want to tie themselves to the Islamic world and submit to its 25
control separately produce their products to suit at the cost of their Muslim
purchasers BUT dont pass those products and extra costs onto US, the 80 % of the
world and 98% of Australians who are NOT Muslim! Muslims in Australia make up <2
% of the population so let THEM IMPORT their special halal food if they are incapable of
eating ordinary food which their text and laws allow! 30
As for Islamic countries., a recent talk I attended noted the instability and economic failure
of these countries despite oil, and the very HIGH cost of food as a % of income ie Muslims
in Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan pay 3-5 times what we pay as a % of income so the obvious
thing would be that this is a BAD market to be tied to and that most of these Muslims
would happily buy any cheaper food, halal or not! All the costs involved in the halal 35
rort make their food as well as ours unnecessarily more expensive.
This is a worldwide rort where businesses are told they must buy halal certification to sell
into the Islamic market here or overseas while certain Muslim groups make a financial
killing. The halal food industry is a false, created market that would buy our food, halal
or not. 40

127
p127 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Halal food is like the absurd halal makeup, and halal applications for computers its a
word that we are made to PAY for when WE dont want it! We pay more, so does the
ordinary Muslim who is also subjected to mind-manipulation and fear tactics to force them
to buy only halal certified food while their laws note that such obsessive insanity is
blameworthy extremism. 5
Demand HALAL FREE food-
WE must not be subjected to or made to pay for Islams food fetishes and
halal/haram insanity. This is a totally unnecessary rort of non-Muslims (and poor
Muslims) to benefit certain Islamic individuals and groups and to put all under sharia.
Check for the halal label (see below for some labels) and DONT BUY the product 10
with one.
If businesses are stupid enough to tie themselves into this market, let the end user, the
Muslim pay for their food fetishes but WE must NOT tolerate an Islamic religious
food tax being passed to us either via failure to label the product as halal or failure to
provide an alternative. 15
*Why do we allow an Islamic religious food tax to be charged on our food when WE
do NOT want halal inspections or halal certification?
*Why are laws not protecting us from companies who mislead by failing to label their
products halal.
*Why are we allowing Islamic control of food production? 20
*What inducements are used and what control is exercised to make our food
producers/manufacturers agents of Islamization and collection agents for Islam's
religious food tax?
*How did Muslims eat before halal certification?
*How did we sell into the Islamic world before halal? 25
*How much is this con really worth compared to what it may COST as many people
now reject halal food and refuse to buy it and as more understand the con, the
financial rort by Muslim groups, and the stealth sharia MORE will refuse halal
products.
Another market is opening up --- the anti-halal market. I await manufacturing 30
entrepreneurs who recognise an Australian market for food that is NOT halal and the
growth of this market in England, Europe in general, USA, Japan, China, Thailand and
other Buddhist nations, South Korea, Christian Africa and Central and South America and
others who do NOT want to pay Islams religious food tax, who do NOT want sharia
imposed on them and who do NOT want to fund an ideology that has slaughtered and 35
enslaved in the past and threatens them in the present.
Remember every time you buy halal food, you are paying an imposed Islamic
religious food tax that goes into the coffers of Islamic groups to be used for --- well
certainly nothing good for the infidel thats for sure and their business tax certainly
doesnt compensate for our communal losses! Remember all Muslims and Muslim 40
businesses pay Zakat and a beneficiary of zakat is those fighting for allah (military
operations), weapons, mounts, expenses.... But in my view far more dangerous is the

128
p128 29-7-2014
A 1
st
increased money taken FROM US and used to build mosques (command and control
centres), Islamic schools and to oil Islamic influence and infiltration in the unending
quest for absolute dominance and the rule of sharia. *Do these halal businesses also
pass gratuities or gifts to their Islamic masters?
PS: Is the truth being hidden? 4 years ago I researched this topic and could find lists of 5
halal certified food manufacturers ---several not displaying labels eg Sanitarium but today
information is harder to find (try : Halal Australia) for some big names with halal
certification but this is only a tiny sample missing groups like Bega, Cadbury.... )
We are information gathering and this article aims to pose some of the many questions that
need to be researched and answered. 10

References:
1) OBrien, Natalie: Islamic group hit by 'lies, plotting' September 08, 2008 (Australian)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24309732-2702,00.html)
2) Muhammad, Zara. Redefining beauty care products for Muslims 2010-03-29 15
http://www.newzglobe.com/article/20100329/redefining-beauty-care-products-muslims
3) Reliance of the Traveller: A classic manual of Islamic sacred law. In Arabic with facing English Text,
commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller Al-Misri, Ahmad ibn Naqib; Amana
publications Maryland USA 1994.
PS please write to these people involved in food labelling to make halal labels 20
compulsory and large with the word halal as many dont see or know the meaning of
the tiny symbols.
The really important group is the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
who seem to determine the labelling code. Halal labelling seems to be missing so
PLEASE contact these people and tell them your concerns and need for all halal food 25
to be labelled.
Eg . Food Standarts where you can email them from the site or write or phone:
Australia New Zealand
55 Blackall
Street, Level
6
108 The Terrace
BARTON
ACT 2600
WELLINGTON 6011
Ph: +61 2
6271 2222
Ph: +64 4 978 5630
Fax: +61 2
6271 2278
Fax: +64 4 473 9855
PO Box 7186 PO Box 10559
Canberra BC
ACT 2610
The Terrace, Wellington
6143, New Zealand

email:
info@foodstandards.govt.nz

Enforcement and Interpretation of the Code is the responsibility of State/Territory 30
Health Departments within Australia and New Zealand so these also need to be
contacted as well to make it clear that all halal food must be labelled so we can at least
choose NOT to buy them.

129
p129 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 June 2011 09:14

http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i
d=4361:the-halal-rort-on-australians-paying-an-islamic-religious-food-tax-without- 5
knowing-part-1&catid=180&Itemid=18
END QUOTE

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664
397 U.S. 664 Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York (No. 135) 10
Argued: November 19, 1969 Decided: May 4, 1970
Dissent DOUGLAS, J., Dissenting Opinion
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
QUOTE
But the federal grants to private institutions of higher education are revealed in Department of Health, 15
Education, and Welfare (HEW), Digest of Educational Statistics 16 (1969). These show in billions of dollars
the following:
[n15]

19666. . . . . . . . $1-4
1966-67. . . . . . . $1.6
1967-68. . . . . . . $1.7 20
1968-69. . . . . . . $1.9
1969-70. . . . . . . $2.1
[p715]
It is an old, old problem. Madison adverted to it:
[n16]

END QUOTE 25

This is a 1970 judgment and one can imagine how much it would be now in figures.
.
It may be notice that 397 U.S. 664 Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York (No.
135) was followed subsequently by WELSH v. UNI TED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 30
398 U.S. 333. The latter already quoted above.

397 U.S. 664 Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York (No. 135)
Argued: November 19, 1969 Decided: May 4, 1970 35
Opinion
BURGER, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
QUOTE
The hazards of placing too much weight on a few words or phrases of the Court is abundantly illustrated 40
within the pages of the Court's opinion in Everson. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, writing for the Court s majority,
said the First Amendment
means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can . . . pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
END QUOTE 45

Opinion 50
BURGER, J., Opinion of the Court

130
p130 29-7-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE
It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution
by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence, and indeed predates it.
END QUOTE
5
Opinion
BURGER, J., Opinion of the Court 10
QUOTE
It is interesting to note that, while the precise question we now decide has not been directly before the Court
previously, the broad question was discussed by the Court in relation to real estate taxes assessed nearly a
century ago on land owned by and adjacent to a church in Washington, D.C.
[n9]
At that time, Congress 15
granted real estate tax exemptions to buildings devoted to art, to institutions of public charity, libraries,
cemeteries, and "church buildings, and grounds actually occupied by such buildings." In denying tax
exemption as to land owned by but not used for the church, but rather to produce income, the Court
concluded:
In the exercise of this [taxing] power, Congress, like any State legislature unrestricted by constitutional 20
provisions, may, at its discretion, wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or [p680] may tax
them at a lower rate than other property.
Gibbons v. District of Columbia 116 U.S. 404, 408 (1886).
END QUOTE
25
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. 30
QUOTE
That is a major difference between churches, on the one hand, and the rest of the nonprofit
organizations, on the other. Government could provide or finance operas, hospitals, historical societies,
and all the rest because they represent social welfare programs within [p709] the reach of the police
power. In contrast, government may not provide or finance worship because of the Establishment 35
Clause any more than it may single out "atheistic" or "agnostic" centers or groups and create or
finance them.

The Brookings Institution, writing in 1933, before the application of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the States, said about tax exemptions of religious groups:
[n8]
40

Tax exemption, no matter what its form, is essentially a government grant or subsidy. Such grants
would seem to be justified only if the purpose for which they are made is one for which the legislative
body would be equally willing to make a direct appropriation from public funds equal to the amount of
the exemption. This test would not be met except in the case where the exemption is granted to 45
encourage certain activities of private interests which, if not thus performed, would have to be assumed
by the government at an expenditure at least as great as the value of the exemption.
END QUOTE

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/664 50
QUOTE 55
Whether a particular church seeking an exemption for its welfare work could constitutionally pass muster
would depend on the special facts. The assumption is that the church is a purely private institution,
promoting a sectarian cause. The creed, teaching, and beliefs of one may be undesirable or even
repulsive to others. Its sectarian faith sets it apart from all others, and makes it difficult to equate its
constituency with the general public. The extent that its facilities are open to all may only indicate the 60
nature of its proselytism. Yet, though a church covers up its religious symbols in welfare work, its welfare

131
p131 29-7-2014
A 1
st
activities may merely be a phase of sectarian activity. I have said enough to indicate the nature of this tax
exemption problem.
Direct financial aid to churches or tax exemptions to the church qua church is not, in my view, even
arguably permitted.
END QUOTE 5

Dissent DOUGLAS, J., Dissenting Opinion 10
QUOTE
If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever
under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith. Believers are
doubtless comforted that the cause of religion is being fostered by this legislation. Yet one of the 15
mandates of the First Amendment is to promote a viable, pluralistic society and to keep government
neutral, not only between sects, but also between believers and nonbelievers. The present involvement
of government in religion may seem de minimis. But it is, I fear, a long step down the Establishment
path. Perhaps I have been misinformed. But as I have read the Constitution and its philosophy, I
gathered that independence was the price of liberty. 20
END QUOTE

On the basis of what I have set out it is my view that contrary to the US Supreme Court opinion
the Commonwealth of Australia having a different constitutional; set up, such as confining s116
only to the States, then the Commonwealth of Australia must be deemed to be prohibited from 25
providing any financial support, directly or indirectly, to religious entities.
Again:
QUOTE
Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution? 30
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
[start page 1773]
END QUOTE
. 35
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-A rather important point has been raised with regard to sub-section (2),
in regard to the question of uniformity of taxation. While there has been no express decision by the American
courts as to the meaning of the words "uniform throughout the Commonwealth," there are expressions in one 40
of the cases which render it necessary for us to use caution. I therefore ask for a little more time in which to
consider this matter.
Mr. HIGGINS.-To allow graduations and exemptions, is it?
Mr. BARTON.-My own desire is that the Federal Parliament should be unfettered in the exercise of its
taxing power, if it has to use any direct taxation at all. Whatever my own opinions may be as to the way in 45
which that power should be exercised, it is necessary that the authority to which it is confided should have the
power in full force. That being so, I wish to see that this authority is properly conserved. For that reason, I
think it advisable to postpone the matter, and I therefore move that it should be postponed until after clause 80
has been considered. It would then come on immediately before the provision relating to finance and trade, to
which it is so nearly related. 50
The motion was agreed to, and the clause postponed.
END QUOTE

132
p132 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK) s51(ii)
QUOTE
(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts
of States;
END QUOTE 5

If it was held that other than gradual taxation there could be exemptions then s51(ii) would clash
where one organisation that would be obligated to pay taxes whereas another organisation does
not because of not-for-profit (non profit) registration then the gradual taxation is not applicable
and neither does it comply with s51(ii). Therefore, I view not-for-profit (non profit) exemptions 10
are unconstitutional. Indeed, it allows a government to undermine the constitutional prohibition
by creating not-for-profit (non-profit) status for like political parties where as INDEPENDENT
candidates do not have the same rights.
In my view any grand, directly or indirectly, not being the ordinary expenditure must be subject
to an Appropriation Bill passes by the Parliament. 15
It should also be understood that some Persons may get a tax refund not because they paid any
taxes for that year but because they can get tax exemption regarding certain matters and then
spreading it over some number of years still can obtain a tax refund.
As such, essentially it is a tax funded subsidy and not at all a tax exemption.
20
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
. The arguments of the Hon. Mr. Carruthers appear to have fallen on deaf ears, but, [start page 2042] as he
pointed out, if there be embedded in the Constitution a direct enactment that no proposed laws for taxation 25
including more than the one subject of taxation, and no proposed Appropriation Bill going outside the
ordinary services of the year, can be legally dealt with, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate would not only be authorized, but would be imperatively required, in the
discharge of their duty, to rule such a measure out of order at any stage of its existence.
END QUOTE 30

Hansard 4-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Clause 83.-No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth, except under appropriation 35
made by law.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I beg to move-
That at the end of clause 83, there be added the words "but until the first appropriation the Governor-General
in Council may draw from the Treasury, and expend, such moneys as may be necessary for the maintenance
of any department transferred to the Commonwealth under this Constitution." 40
This is an amendment of substance, which I will explain in a few words. Clause 83 means that no
money can be spent unless Parliament passes an Appropriation Act. But before Parliament is in existence
certain departments will have been transferred to the Commonwealth. These departments will have to be
administered by the Commonwealth, and that will necessitate expenditure for the maintenance and
continuance of the departments. 45
Mr. ISAACS.-How about the expenses of electing the first Parliament?
Mr. BARTON.-That might have to wait. One is so chary about giving power to spend money that is not
appropriated by law that I and my colleagues on the committee have endeavoured to keep the power down as
low as possible, so as to confine it to expenditure absolutely necessary for the administration of departments.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would happen if the Government of the day did spend the money? Could the 50
High Court do anything?

133
p133 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-Well, I am not quite sure about that. I do not think Sir John Forrest need have any
particular apprehension that any of the results which he thought was threatened when the previous discussion
was going on will come about.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-It is a very important matter.
Mr. BARTON.-The amendment reads "but until the first appropriation the Governor-General in 5
Council may draw upon the Treasury, and expend, such money as may be necessary for the
maintenance of any department transferred to the Commonwealth under this Constitution." It is
obviously clear there must be some expenditure, and it is provided in the clause that no money shall be drawn
from the Treasury except under appropriation made by law. If the amendment were not passed, [start page
1897] the Executive, in the organization of the departments, must be hampered. It is obvious that some 10
provision must be made. No provision can be made by Parliament until Parliament is in existence, and any
payments made in the interval would, at any rate, be technically breaches of the Constitution, unless they are
provided for in the way the amendment suggests.
END QUOTE
15
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER.-A measure would be valid while it was a Bill, and invalid when it became a law.
Mr. ISAACS.-That is a very terse and correct way of putting it, and it proves the absurdity of the provision. 20
We are, in my opinion, making the Senate too strong a body. To allow these matters to be carried into the
Supreme Court is to say that the Senate cannot protect itself, and that the states cannot protect themselves.
Surely that is not to be thought of for a moment. We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers'
Constitution. We shall be making the Supreme Court, not the master, but the tyrant of the Constitution, by
inserting a clause of this kind. I do strongly appeal to my honorable friends to alter the clause in some way. 25
My view is that we should put in the word "proposed." At all events, we should do something in this
direction, and we should at least make a distinct provision that if a Bill does not comply with this clause, the
invalidity should go no further than the additional matter. That could be worked out no doubt in an
Appropriation Bill, but you could not work it out in a Taxation Bill, because where two subjects were
dealt with you could not tell which was the additional matter. You might make such a provision with 30
regard to the additional matter in Appropriation Bills. The court could then say that certain items were
not for the annual services of the year. They would be invalid, and the remainder of the Bill would be valid,
but that would lead to the difficulty of the court having to determine what were the ordinary annual services
of the year.
Mr. BARTON.-Are not the annual services the annual expenditure proper to the public service? 35
Mr. ISAACS.-Supposing that some compensation were being paid to a discharged public servant.
That would not come within the ordinary annual services.[start page 2003] It would not be proper to the
public service of the Commonwealth. It would not be a payment for services rendered in the future, but for
services in the past. We all know that in connexion with the ordinary annual Appropriation Bills
questions arise that make it very difficult to say what is and what is not an ordinary annual service. 40
END QUOTE

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) s51(xxvi)
QUOTE
(xxvi) the people of any race,(other than the aboriginal race in any 45
State,) for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
END QUOTE

The red part was deleted.
50
QUOTE
That the words "The affairs of," first line sub-section (1),be omitted.
[start page 253]

134
p134 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-I have no objection to taking it that way.
Mr. DEAKIN.-I think it must now be perfectly clear that what we desire is, not to deprive, the Federal
Parliament of its paramount power in every respect in regard to any dealings with the races referred
to, but to leave to the several states, until the Federal Parliament legislates upon the alien question, the
operation of all legislation already passed, and the the right to legislate in the future until the Federal 5
Parliament thinks fit to supersede it by specific legislation. For instance, the Federal Parliament might well
pass a general law applying to these races without making any reference to their employment as miners or
hawkers, and any state legislation in regard to those occupations which might be in existence would continue,
or now legislation regarding them might be introduced. When the Federal Parliament chooses to make
regulations in regard to the employment of aliens as hawkers and miners, the state legislation will cease to 10
have effect. The honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) said-Hand to the Federal Parliament all powers
connected with aliens, and allow them to give back certain powers to the state." We say-Instead of taking
these powers from the states and giving them back again, let us leave them with the states until the Federal
Parliament chooses to assume them."
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I do not think it makes any substantial difference whether you put 15
this provision in clause 52, or leave it where it is. The Federal Parliament has first to say what races it is:
necessary to make regulations about.
Mr. ISAACS.-That is giving a rather limited meaning to the words "deemed necessary."
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the
words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether we 20
leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
will have arisen. The only matter for the committee to consider is as to the expediency of leaving the 25
provision here or of putting; it into clause 52. Wherever it is, it will, upon the passing of the Constitution,
operate as an intimation to the Federal Parliament that this is a matter of national import, upon which they are
expected to legislate. Once within the Commonwealth citizens should be able to go freely from one state to
another; there should be no lines of differentiation between states. If races are admitted into one state, and are
not free to go into another, the inconveniences of administration, especially on the borders, will be very great. 30
It has been thought well that there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in respect to the
citizens of Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate clause
giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal Parliament should legislate
upon this matter. In my opinion, whether you put the provision into clause 52, or leave it where it is, its
substantial legislative effect will be the same. As to the meaning of the words, "the affairs of the people of 35
any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary," in my opinion it is the Federal Parliament who must
deem it necessary.
Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate for the whole
general community?
Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply to the general 40
community.
[start page 254]
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-My argument is that deemed necessary means deemed necessary by the Parliament
of the Commonwealth. Assuming that I am right, I ask to whom does this clause extend? The persons named
by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. When the Commonwealth Parliament deals with this subject, its 45
legislation will over-ride any local legislation, no matter whether you put the provision in clause 52 or leave it
in clause 53. What the representatives from Victoria want is exactly what is provided here, but the provision
is put where it is for the purposes of extra emphasis, and to indicate to the Federal Parliament that they are
expected to make over-riding and general legislation in regard to this vital question. I think honorable
members are, almost without exception, strongly of opinion that there should be federal legislation upon this 50
matter, and I therefore believe that it will meet the wishes of honorable members if we leave the provision
exactly where it is, as a means of hurrying up the Federal Parliament and causing it to legislate in this matter
as soon as possible.

135
p135 29-7-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
There can be no doubt as to the desirability of conferring unlimited powers on the Federal Parliament to 5
prevent the introduction of foreign coloured races.
END QUOTE
.
Australasian Convention) 10
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia.
END QUOTE 15

What is clear that the race provision was to the regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white
Australia. and Aboriginals already residing in the Commonwealth of Australia hardly would have fit this
intention. Nor can it be held that even including Aboriginals in s51(xxvii) allow the Commonwealth to legislate 20
adverse to the general community.
Again:
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply to the general 25
community.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 30
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I 35
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any 40
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all. 45
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think 50
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have 55

136
p136 29-7-2014
A 1
st
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth 5
should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and 10
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: 15
It is only when the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those
matters that the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal
legislature chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not
interfering with the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is
proposed to give some exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal 20
with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws
not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation
with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
END QUOTE
25
Again:
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed
necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; 30
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent? 35
Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community is any
reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian persecution-any fear
that there will be any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole
of the advancement in English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has shown
a less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances, or to 40
maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all these
colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a
Parliament which will be at least as enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various
states; therefore, what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or possibility, taking into 45
consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly going on of any of these various
communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these
communities in which we live, have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised
under a different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement; if, as this
progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State 50
becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former
days with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of
Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as
much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in respect of the

137
p137 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any one of the states. Now, we have
shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a
provision that might be held to be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various
religions which are believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other
races, which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any 5
civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of legislation in
regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the
making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we
have all these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its
regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of 10
humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on
humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a
dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page 1772] of their
hands the power of preventing any such practices.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill? 15
Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent anything
that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.
END QUOTE
20
QUOTE
and also with regard to the making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races belonging
to any state-inasmuch as we have all these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that
the Commonwealth, under its regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which 25
are abhorrent to the ideas of humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it is a
reasonable thing that these outrages on humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited
by the Commonwealth
END QUOTE
30
With this the Commonwealth of Australia in that regard would have legislative powers to
prohibit any race (being it a coloured race) to be involved in any form of terrorism, apart of any
ordinary defence and security powers.
The Commonwealth of Australia therefore would be entitled also to limit the movement of any
(coloured) race within its jurisdiction, that includes any person of that race which remains within 35
Australian jurisdiction even when traveling/residing in a foreign country.

But there is more to this
:
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian 40
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:-
The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory
of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and 45
immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any
law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of its laws.
Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in 50
mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of
alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act,
which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other

138
p138 29-7-2014
A 1
st
colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who
cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would
debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of
Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes
far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this 5
clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir
Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than
anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to
define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day 10
with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth in this connexion.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
. 20
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights. 25
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
.
As to Aboriginals:
. 30
QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal
natives shall not be counted.
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in 35
some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be
debarred from voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population
is too small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. 40
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be
deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the
people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. 45
END QUOTE
.
What we therefore have is that the Inclusion of Aboriginals and special laws enacted for
Aboriginals within s51(xxvi) causes them to have lost their franchise (right to vote).
50
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing
crime to the Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make
special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws 55
does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the
Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not
defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all,

139
p139 29-7-2014
A 1
st
however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we
do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the
Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we
should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the
Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. 5
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. DOBSON.-Would not the amendment leave it open to the Federal Parliament to dictate to any state 10
that it should not open its picture galleries and museums on Sunday?
Mr. SYMON.-There, is no power under the Constitution that would enable the Federal Parliament to do
that. I am satisfied that it is embodied in the Constitution as a part of the unwritten law that no church
establishment shall prevail, and that religious freedom shall be observed.
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I shall support the amendment in the form in which it has been 15
proposed by Mr. Higgins. There is a great deal of force in the suggestion that, in view of the amendment in
the preamble, we should make a declaration of this description in the broadest possible terms, for the purpose
of allaying any apprehension that might otherwise be entertained on the subject. As the matter stands at
present, the states have full power, if they so desire, to legislate. The Commonwealth will, undoubtedly, also
have power to legislate in respect of a matter of this description, so far as the affairs of the people of any 20
race for whom it is necessary [start page 1777] to adopt special legislation are concerned. That power is
expressly given to the Federal Parliament, and I have no doubt whatever that in the exercise of it a law might
be passed concerning special races, and prohibiting the free exercise of their religion, or imposing something
in the nature of a religious test. I do not think that power ought to be given to the Federal Parliament. It is a
matter of purely domestic concern, with which the states are particularly qualified to deal. If we carry the 25
amendment in the way in which it is now proposed, we shall secure to the states the power which they at
present possess, and which they can be trusted to exercise with an intimate knowledge of all the local
circumstances. We shall prevent any unnecessary interference by the Federal Parliament in a matter of
domestic concern, and we shall allay those fears which have been referred to by various honorable members.
I trust, therefore, the amendment will be agreed to as proposed. 30
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Dr. QUICK.-This definition does not interfere with the term "subject" in its wider relation as a member of 35
the empire or subject of the Queen.
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races. 40
Mr. BARTON.-But if he is under any disability under any regulation of the [start page 1787]
Commonwealth he would cease to be a citizen, however slight that disability might be. I doubt whether the
honorable member intends that. There is power by law to regulate the people of any race requiring special
laws. There may be some purely regulative law passed, not imposing any special restriction on any person of
that kind who may be a subject of the Queen. That regulation, if it were of the mildest character, under this 45
definition, would deprive him of his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-The regulation would have to specify the ground of disability.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but my honorable friend says not under any disability imposed by the Parliament.
Would not the difficulty be that if he were under any slight disability for regulative purposes, all his rights of
citizenship under the Commonwealth would be lost? 50
Mr. KINGSTON.-There might be a special disability on minors.

140
p140 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. BARTON.-That might be one of the disabilities. Of course here the disabilities as to minors
would not matter much, but I would like to put this consideration to Dr. Quick, that if we use the term
"subject," or a person subject to the laws, which is a wider term, we shall avoid the necessity for a definition
of "citizen." You might say a subject or resident being the subject of the Queen.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Subject to the laws will be too wide. 5
Mr. BARTON.-Yes, it might be. The expression "resident subjects of the Queen" would avoid the
necessity of having a definition of a term which only occurs in one place in the Constitution. I do not know
how Mr Symon would take the suggestion, but it is far better not to import the word "citizen" here if we can
deal with it by a term well known in the constitutional relations of the empire between the Queen and her
subjects. 10
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I have expressed the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly. that the word
"citizen" does not require a definition at all in the Constitution. We are not dealing with rigid terms or with a
Constitution which is not to be perfectly elastic, and under the construction and interpretation of the
Constitution the word "citizen" seems to me to be capable of very easy determination. It is one of those
expressions which in the Constitution is just as easy of determination as the word "person." I really do not see 15
where the difficulty is.
Mr. ISAACS.-It has been found very difficult to define it by decisions in the United States.
Mr. SYMON.-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in constitutional law than Mr.
Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has been the subject of more or less debate and
discussion, and will be until the end of time. 20
The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy at all times if
occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle that there should be a definition
of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr. Quick or by Mr. Barton. I will be quite content. The
principle is what I am contending for: The principle that our labours will be incomplete unless we make the
rights of citizens or subjects in one state to extend to the citizens of another state who may go from one state 25
to another. There ought to be no possibility of any state imposing a disqualification on a person in the holding
of property, or in the enjoyment of any civil right, simply because be happens to belong to another state. That
would not give us the uniformity of citizenship we all desire, and therefore I am willing that the word
"citizenship" should be defined as Dr. Quick suggests, with perhaps some modification. I also support the
suggestion from the Chair that the two propositions might be considered together. The clause would do 30
something to meet the difficulty, not perhaps finally or conclusively, as Mr. Isaacs, said, but at any rate to a
large extent and almost completely.
[start page 1788]
END QUOTE
35
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I am afraid that the amendment is far too wide, unless we say that the disabilities
imposed by Parliament may extend to birth and race. This would, notwithstanding the rights conferred
under clause 52, deprive Parliament of the power of excluding Chinese, Lascars, or Hindoos who 40
happened to be British subjects.
END QUOTE

QUOTE 45
Mr. WISE.-Not at all. All this, of course, is to be subject to the general power conferred on the
Commonwealth by subsection (26) of clause 52 to make special laws for particular races. Probably it would
be more apt to use these words:-
Every subject of the Queen resident in any state or part of the Commonwealth shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of subjects resident in other states or parts of the Commonwealth, but this section 50
shall not apply to the people of any race in respect of which the power conferred by sub-section (26) of
clause 52 can be exercised.

141
p141 29-7-2014
A 1
st
That would give Parliament every control, and prevent the states from being coerced in respect of the
coloured races, while it would get over the difficulties which have been suggested by attempting to
define Commonwealth citizenship.
END QUOTE
5
QUOTE
Mr. REID.-It seems to me that, so far as the amendment of Dr. Quick is concerned, we do not need to take
the slightest trouble as to the citizens of the Commonwealth, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned.
Every man who becomes an elector of the Commonwealth enjoys all the privileges of the Commonwealth 10
Constitution and all the rights which he may get thereunder. Aliens are dealt with under special powers, and
so with other races. Consequently, I think we are wasting a great deal of time in trying to define what a
citizen of the Commonwealth is. We understand what "An elector of the Commonwealth" means We
understand what "A man who has got the suffrage" means. We also understand that no question can
arise as to whether Commonwealth laws will equally apply to male and female persons, and so on. 15
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I beg to move- 20
That all the words from the words "several states " (line 3) inclusive to the end of the clause be omitted,
with a view to the insertion of the following words:-
"Commonwealth. The number of members chosen in the several states shall be in proportion to the
respective numbers of their people. But if by the law of any state the people of any race are not entitled to
vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the state, then, in reckoning the number 25
of the people of the state, the people of that race shall not be counted."
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-Does not this amendment involve an alteration of the quota principle?
Mr. OCONNOR.-No; that comes later on.
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-This amendment provides that if by the law of any state the people of any race
are not entitled to vote, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the state, they shall not be counted. I 30
should like to know whether the honorable and learned member has considered this in relation to the clause
which gives the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to the people of any [start page 1828] race.
Suppose that power is exercised by the Commonwealth in a manner over-riding the law of the state-is this
provision sufficient?
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I think so, because the honorable member will see that what we 35
want to get at is the number of persons to be counted. If by any law of any state persons of a certain race are
not counted they will not be counted in this enumeration.
Mr. ISAACS.-Will the honorable member consider it?
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. At the present time I think it is sufficient, but I will consider it.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-The words proposed to be inserted are- 40
Commonwealth. The number of members chosen in the several states shall be in proportion to the respective
numbers of their people.
And so on. That provision directly negatives proposed new clause 24A, which seems to continue the quota
principle.
The CHAIRMAN.-There is a mistake in the printing. The amendment should read-"Omit to the end of the 45
paragraph," not "to the end of the clause."
END QUOTE

142
p142 29-7-2014
A 1
st
The purpose of s51(xxvi) was to DISCRIMINATE against a specific race by which all
persons of that race would lose their citizenship (franchise). This is obvious as to prevent those
subject to a special law to use any voting power to reinstate the law or otherwise undermine the
legislation.
. 5
As referred to above:
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in 10
saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if
they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE

Also, it should be understood that section 116 was later inserted and so overrides s51(xxvi) 15
powers.
.
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, 20
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 too
much care has not been exercised. 25
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct 30
in 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 a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is 35
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 should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to 40
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 that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
. 45
While I have from onset started about the Islamic religion in reality it makes not one iota
difference if they are Arabs, Chinese or whatever. The Commonwealth may be able to use
already existing legislation against any specific race to make clear all people of that race lost
their citizenship (so franchise). Therefore any legislation against Arabs would not necessarily
mean it is against the religious practice of Islam because ample of Arabs are following Christian 50
religions other than Islamic religion. The states however are not prohibited and in fact were
specifically permitted to deal with religion and so can prohibit certain religious exercise,
conduct, etc. However, if the Commonwealth has any specific legislation on foot regarding the
Arab race then by this all people of that race are excluded from citizenship, so franchise and
cannot sit in the Parliament either. 55
The same with Aboriginals, since the Commonwealth legislated as to Aboriginals.

143
p143 29-7-2014
A 1
st
A problem that exist is that the Framers of the Constitution regarded Afghans as a race.
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:- 5
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general 10
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if 15
Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans? 20
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it. 25
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the 30
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws. 35
END QUOTE

Rightly or wrongly my understanding is that Afghans are consisting of different tribes and
heritages not necessarily all being Arabs. I do not view they are a race on their own. One may
likewise refer to Chinese who in todays society include many different races. 40
.
Abolishing s51(xxvi) may be the best way to go about, but while it exist and legislation was
enacted within its legal provisions and still existing then like it nor not those races in regard of
whom special legislation is on foot, including the Aboriginals are constitutionally not entitled to
be citizens and have franchise let alone sit in the Parliament. 45
It also means that any such special laws would oust any person from being in State Parliament
and or municipal/shire council if franchise is a criterion for this.
Hence, unlike the pig-tail incident the Framers of the Constitution referred to, it is another matter
if existing laws created for the correct reasons in the process then have an additional affect which
prevents them to sit in a Parliament or municipal/shire council. 50

In a time where the Commonwealth of Australia is trying to get the budget back into the black
one then has to wonder why it has not already acted against not-for-profit (non profit) entities as

144
p144 29-7-2014
A 1
st
to outlaw any funding for purposes outside the Commonwealth of Australia unless so specifically
authorised by the Commonwealth of Australia.
Lets be clear about it that whiles it is very much a point of issue that many a person in the
Commonwealth of Australia is sending monies to so-called terrorist groups one must never target
one group while allowing others to flourish for the same. 5
The Commonwealth of Australia in my view may be justified within its race powers to deny all
persons of a specific race to travel outside the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Australia if
there is a genuine issue of persons involved in foreign countries internal strife. But it must relate
to all persons of that race, not just some of them. It may be that the legislation demands that
people of a certain race must obtain special permission to travel abroad, and this may be 10
sufficient to separate the agitators, etc, from travelling abroad.
For the above stated it also should be understood that the Northern Territory I ntervention Act
was and remains unconstitutional, as it is not a legislation that first within s51(xxvi), this as it is
not a legislation relating to all people of the Aboriginal race. After all, those residing in major
cities around the Commonwealth of Australia are not subjected to the same legislative 15
provisions!
.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject? 20
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen 25
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case. 30
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE 35
.
It doesnt matter if a person seeking to enter is of a coloured race or not, albeit s51(xxvi) as
referred to above was specifically inserted in the constitution to enable the Commonwealth of
Australia to exclude persons of a coloured race to enter the Commonwealth of Australia
regardless if they were British Subjects, and as such the entire refugee or purported refugee 40
debacle is one fit and proper to decide for the Federal Government. No matter what any
government may do there always will be a group of people opposing it and a group supporting it.
Therefore, the issue is if the Federal Government acts within the legal provisions provided for by
the Parliament then this has to be accepted as proper. Often you find an opposition so to say
screaming blue murder about a proposed legislation but the moment it achieves office then 45
suddenly they not only are embracing it but often are even adding to it. Thats politics.

For my part it makes not one of iota difference of whatever race, religion, colour of skin a
person is in a Parliament or municipal/shire council as long as this person acts in the
interest of the community. That is what really should be of our concern! 50
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)


145
p145 29-7-2014
A 1
st

END QUOTE 1-3-2014 correspondence Mr Tony Abbott

QUOTE 26-6-2014 correspondence to Mr Chernov Governor of Victoria 5
Mr Chernov Governorf of Victoria-etc 26-6-2014
enquiries@govhouse.vic.gov.au

Cc: Christine Fyffe, Speaker christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au 10
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
Treasurer Michael OBrien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Robert Clark Attorney General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 15
Louise Asher louise.asher@parliament.vic.gov.au
Bruce Atkinson bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au 20
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
tim.bull@parliament.vic.gov.au, david.davis@parliament.vic.gov.au, martin.dixon@parliament.vic.gov.au,
damian.drum@parliament.vic.gov.au, matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au,
david.hodgett@parliament.vic.gov.au, wendy.lovell@parliament.vic.gov.au,
terence.mulder@parliament.vic.gov.au, premier@dpc.vic.gov.au, russell.northe@parliament.vic.gov.au, 25
edward.o'donohue@parliament.vic.gov.au, inga.peulich@parliament.vic.gov.au, gordon.rich-
phillips@parliament.vic.gov.au, peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au, ryan.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au,
heidi.victoria@parliament.vic.gov.au, nick.wakeling@parliament.vic.gov.au,
peter.walsh@parliament.vic.gov.au, kim.wells@parliament.vic.gov.au,
mary.wooldridge@parliament.vic.gov.au 30

Ref; 20140625-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Chernov Governor of Victoria-
Supreme Court judicial power being robbed-etc
Sir,
One of the worst thing that a parent may face is sexual abuse of a child, in particular that of a 35
tender age child and worse when the very court that is to assist in protecting a child then seems to
make it easier for a paedophile to continue to abuse a child. While this may be seen to be an easy
statement, it are those judges who have stood by electing to remain silent and to do nothing
rather than to stand guard and perform their duties as they should be.
40
In previous correspondences I canvassed that the Victorian Parliament from being a sovereign
Parliament upon federation became a constitutional Parliament and this as the Colonies within
s106 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) became states subject to
this constitution.
45
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
123 Alteration of limits of States
The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the
approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, 50
diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be
agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of
any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.
END QUOTE
55
It appears to me that there is a lack of understanding as to the true meaning and
application/implication what this section actually means. What became clear, prior to federation,

146
p146 29-7-2014
A 1
st
was that the Judiciary of the Colony of Victoria was under the delusion, and yet in my view this
has ever remain to be so another more than 123 years later, and it takes a person like myself with
self-professed crummy English to explain/expose it all, as some of it I will set out below. I
quote first however some quotations of statements by the Framers of the Constitution.
5
Convention)
QUOTE
Chief Justice Higinbotham said:
It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible government in 10
and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the knowledge and approval
and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute," passed by the Imperial
Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of
Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said: 15
All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the
law, and the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government,
have passed as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of
no effect) and may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible
ministers. 20
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own
Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term
it) that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to
find, as far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government. 25
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges
concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy
Council, says:
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not
only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which we 30
now enjoy are without warrant of law.
END QUOTE

Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN: I care not whether it is mechanical or not, as long as it is there, and as long as it
proves effective. If we allow the present state of things to exist, it must lead to dispute and contention.
The final point to which I think it necessary to direct the attention of the Convention most seriously, in order 40
that in drawing the constitution proposed to be adopted by federated Australasia we may not shape it without
regard to recent interpretations of colonial constitutional rights, is to be found in the judgment in the case of
Ah Toy versus Musgrove, delivered by the Supreme Court of Victoria. In that case the powers of the
Executive and those conferred upon the colony under the Constitution were challenged in the courts and
before the Privy Council. The [start page 85] finding is one that will demand the most careful consideration 45
when the federal constitution is being framed, because it has been the common belief in Victoria that we
had all the powers and privileges attaching to responsible government, sufficient to enable us to
perform all the duties and to exercise all the rights devolving upon us as a people. The gravest doubt is
now thrown upon this belief. The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief
Justice and especially for his judgment in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the 50
eloquence of the orator, and the grasp of the statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said:

147
p147 29-7-2014
A 1
st
It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible government in
and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the knowledge and approval
and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute," passed by the Imperial
Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of 5
Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said:
All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the
law, and the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government,
have passed as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of
no effect) and may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible 10
ministers.
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own
Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term
it) that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to 15
find, as far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government.
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges
concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy
Council, says:
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not 20
only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which we
now enjoy are without warrant of law.
That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in asserting
that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people of Australasia will
not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible government, or any limitations, except 25
such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim, without shadow of doubt or vestige of
qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by Englishmen. The governor-general, as representative
of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute with all the powers which should
belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he should act only
on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the sanction of Parliament for 30
their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into intimate relation with the electorates.
This is true, popular government. This will satisfy the people of Australia. Nothing less will satisfy them.
And why should we distrust them, or question their capacity, or seek to impose the bonds of an absolute veto
upon them? The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the responsibilities
of self-government. They have amply proved in the past that they are entitled to be trusted with all the powers 35
appertaining to a free people. They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their
present constitution second to none in the world. When the
question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be satisfied to possess less
freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the explicit claim to
possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British empire to the same extent that they 40
are possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain itself. Australia is entitled to absolute
enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a full-grown democracy. We can
wear no constitutional garb capable of cramping a muscle or confining an artery of national life. We claim the
fullest means of developing all its energies and all its aspirations, and of encountering all that can oppose
them. Why place wisps of straw upon the arms of the young giant, only to become a cause of complaint and 45
to be burst the first time his strength is put forth? Establishing a constitution "broad based upon the people's
will," we shall be securing the safety and security of the state which we propose to raise. But to do anything
short of this would be to sow the seeds of discord and disunion. We are dealing with a constitution which has
not yet reached the full period of its growth, which always has been and always will be steadily progressive,
expansive, and adaptable to national growth. There are many things in the suggestions made by the hon. 50
members from Queensland and other delegates, which are worthy of the fullest consideration. These can be
adopted as soon as they commend themselves to the federal parliament. Under this system of government all
things are possible. I have addressed myself to the subject hurriedly; but I trust I have not been

148
p148 29-7-2014
A 1
st
misunderstood. I am prepared to reconsider and review the whole question with the aid of those older and
abler than myself, in the sincere desire to arrive at a sound conclusion. But I do trust that we shall not throw
aside the constitution under which we have had experience, we shall not forget its triumphs and successes, its
proud history, and it splendid promise; we shall determine not to hastily interfere with its harmony, or destroy
the symmetry of its proportions. What we should aspire to see is a strong government upon the broadest 5
popular basis, and with the amplest national power. We should seek to erect a constitutional edifice, which
shall be a guarantee of liberty and union, for all time to come, to the whole people of this continent and the
adjacent islands, to which they shall learn to look up with reverence and regard, which shall stand strong as a
fortress and be held sacred as a shrine.
Motion (by Mr. BARTON) proposed: That the debate be now adjourned. 10
Question put and division called for.
The PRESIDENT: I propose, if there is a division, instead of appointing tellers, as we should do in a house
of Parliament, to call upon the officers of the House to take the division.
The request for a division was not pressed.
Motion agreed to. 15
END QUOTE

Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON: 20
I take it as a matter of course that at some period, and at an early period, after the federation of the colonies,
the trade and intercourse, whether by way of land carriage or coastal navigation, shall be absolutely free. It is
impossible to suppose a perfect union, [start page 90] except under such a condition. But while that is laid
down, it is equally open to us to say that for a certain time we may be able, and must be able, to put up with a
union somewhat imperfect. I must say that it does appear to me, when one endeavours to look at the matter 25
from the point of view of others as well as from one's own point of view, that some compromise of this kind
is one to which probably this Convention will be impelled if anything secure by way of a constitution is to
arise, and come from its labours. Passing away from that question, which, of course, will be vastly more fully
debated in Committee, I wish to deal with resolution No. 1:
That the powers and privileges and territorial rights of the several existing colonies shall remain intact, 30
except in respect to such surrenders as may be agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and
authority of the national federal government.
I should have liked to see added to this, unless indeed it is intended to be included, something which will
specify that the actual territory of any existing province shall not be subject to any kind of diminution or
absorption for the purpose of constituting new provinces, except with the consent of the legislature of the 35
province affected. That, sir, you may have intended in this resolution. If that is stated to be so, I am perfectly
satisfied; but I am also equally satisfied that we are not likely to base federation on the good-will and union
of the colonies unless a guarantee of that kind be provided. With respect to the question of the powers,
privileges, and territorial rights of the existing colonies, I said that I would endeavour to consider it in
connection with the question of the parliament alluded to in the first resolution under the second heading. I 40
take it that this first resolution must be an essential of any just union of the colonies. Unless, indeed, these
territorial rights and privileges are conserved, federation would appear to be well nigh impossible; and I think
I way be pardoned for saying that it seems an obvious construction that the powers and privileges and
territorial rights mentioned here are all those state rights as to which the hon. member, Mr. Deakin, yesterday
asked the question, "What are the state rights?" The state rights, it seems to me, are claimed by rather a 45
narrow term. It is state interests we have to deal with, and unless the state interests are effectually preserved
in a federal scheme, that scheme will be worth nothing, because it can be worth only so much as consists of
the goodwill of the parties to it. If that is so, all those state rights which are not to be specially assigned to the
general authority must be religiously preserved to the various states, and it will, therefore, be essential that
the constitution provide-and I take it as a necessary consequence that the constitution shall provide-for a 50
legislative body which, in addition to the functions of a house of representatives, and in addition to the
functions of a second chamber, will also be the guardian of those individualities, those state rights or
interests. If those state rights or interests are threatened in any legislative proposal, whether or not it is
contained in a money bill, they will be under the especial care of the federal senate; and if state rights are

149
p149 29-7-2014
A 1
st
threatened, whether in a money bill or not, it seems to me that it is not good argument to fall back upon the
representative principle to the extent of saying that there is only one representative legislature, and, therefore,
only one which can deal freely with questions of money and taxation if the very spirit upon which the
federation rests is threatened by any scheme in a money or taxation bill.
END QUOTE 5

And also consider:
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for 10
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several 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 15
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, 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 20
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
.
The general misconception appears to me to be that s123 is limited to the boundaries of the State 25
itself and not relating to other matters but clearly the Debates show that it was dealing with rights
and privileges and as such not limited to just the physical boundaries of a State. Indeed,
considering that the Commonwealth is entitled to acquisition of a part of a state for
Commonwealth of Australia purposes this may also underline that s123 is not just limited to the
physical boundary limits. 30
.
QUOTE ss51
(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect
of which the Parliament has power to make laws; 35
END QUOTE

QUOTE
123 Alteration of limits of States 40
The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval
of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise
alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like
consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of
territory in relation to any State affected. 45
END QUOTE

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, 50
"sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is 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." 55
END QUOTE
(See also re Residual Assco Group v Spalvins & Ors A5/2000 (11 May 2000) High Court of Australia Transcripts)
And then con sider;

150
p150 29-7-2014
A 1
st
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS:
I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important
questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets.
END QUOTE 5

Regretfully, dare to challenge unconstitutional conduct and the culprits acting unconstitutionally
will use taxpayers monies to seek to railroad the case against them while the person seeking to
act as a Sentry can face huge legal cost if a judge railroad the case.
10
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a 15
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
20
As result we have no proper democracy as it is merely lip serve without any true meaning.

What therefore is needed is that the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the
hyphens!) a body of constitutional advisers which provide information all the Parliament, the
People, the Government and the courts regarding the true meaning and application of the 25
constitution. The OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) should be
under the direct supervision of the Governor and being able to institute legal proceedings against
anyone, including Ministers of the Crown, where it is deemed the person is acting in defiance of
constitutional provisions.
We have a judicial system that is up the creek where since the Victorian Constitution Act 1855 30
the judiciary has and remained in my view to be under the delusion that the law is as it holds
it to be rather than what it really stands for.

Let me give an example:
Within our constitutional framework the states also have a separation of powers. 35

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local 40
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. 45
END QUOTE

As such, colonies clearly were limited to peace, order, and good government of the
community and this remains to be so with the States created within s106 subject to this
constitution. 50

QUOTE
106 Saving of Constitutions
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue 55
as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State,
as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.

151
p151 29-7-2014
A 1
st
END QUOTE

QUOTE
108 Saving of State laws 5
Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a State, and relating to any matter
within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this Constitution,
continue in force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament of the
Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of repeal in
respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a State. 10
END QUOTE

Where the States are created within s106 of the constitution subject to this constitution then
the separation of powers that exist within the Commonwealth system must also be deemed to
apply within the State framework. 15
After all, the High Court of Australia decision in the Kablecase would be of no value if the State
Parliament could interfere with the judiciary.
.
Ok, what on earth are you going on ab out, you may wonder, surely the States Parliaments are
not interfering with the judiciary? Well, that is clearly incorrect. 20

While within our constitutional structure the supreme Court of Victoria cannot be interfered with
by the legislators it is however done far too often, albeit just once would have been
unconstitutionally and unacceptable.
We have however that while former Supreme Court of Victoria Judge Phillips did make known 25
(as I referred to in previous correspondence) that the Courts are classified as Business Unit 19
it is far worse than this. The Courts are using the ABN number of the State Government, itself in
my view unconstitutional. In my view the commonwealth has no constitutional powers to
interfere and/or tax the judiciary. While I accept it can tax the income of those employed within
the judiciary it can however not apply taxation to the ordinary running of the courts. After all to 30
allow for this means that effectively the Commonwealth of Australia so to say could bribe a court
to hand down a judgement in its favour or the court will be subjected to special taxation, etc.
The courts are not part of the State government but are a part of the constitutional framework, as
I previously made clear that the judiciary is not part of the government or what many judges refer
to as being the 3
rd
branch of Government, as they are not and never can be. 35

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I 40
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to 45
speak of the 4 branched of the constitution, considering: as a part of the Constitution.
1. The Parliament
2. The Federal Executives
3. Judiciary
4. Inter-State Commission. 50

If the judiciary was under the Parliament or Government then either or both could manipulate the
powers of the judiciary. Hence this Business Unit 19 nonsense should be stopped.

152
p152 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Neither can it be held that the Government is under the powers of the parliament, as then this too
would trespass upon the separation of powers. True, governments are accountable to the
Parliament as after all the Government of the Day is to operate within the legal provisions
enacted by the Parliament and failing to do so the Parliament could repeal legislation, etc, but
this is also applicable with the governor/Governor General is he acts outside the bounds of his 5
powers provided for by the parliament.
Moment, you may say, how can the Parliament prescribe what the Governor does if the Governor
exercise Prerogative powers? Well, I didnt state the Parliament can rebuke the Governor about
using or misusing prerogative powers, as that is for Her Majesty to deal with if that were
conveyed to Her Majesty, but the Parliament may provide for additional non-prerogative powers 10
and then if the Governor were to exceed or ab use those additional statutory powers then they can
be withdrawn.

QUOTE 15
Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible government
in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words. We must have some regard to the
instrument we are framing, and we ought to look upon it as a Constitution with plenty of elasticity,
under which all the constitutional usages will apply and be interpreted. If the Commandant was a kind
of Jack-in-office, and wanted to run his army where he ought not to, you could dismiss him. If the 20
Governor-General interfered unduly you would have to say respectfully-"You must not interfere in
these matters; if you do, we shall repeal the Act, and there will be no army; you will be Commander-in-
Chief merely nominally." I hope the words will not be inserted.
END QUOTE
25
Likewise, with a Governor, if the Governor was to be so to say a Jack-in-office then the
Parliament could exercise its legislative powers to repeal certain powers regarding the Governor.
.
But what about if the Parliament abuses/misuses its powers? Well while Parliament is supposed
to restrain itself within the framework of the constitution regretfully when it is dominated by 30
members of the political party that has the Ministers of the Crown then generally the abuse is rife
and unchecked. And any citizen who tries to take on the Parliament likely will be financial worse
off while those culprits who are acting unconstitutionally even if held to be in the wrong will
generally have no punishment at all. That is why what is needed is the OFFICE-OF-THE-
GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) which can take them on and without any financial risk 35
to the ordinary citizen. A citizen can alert the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget
the hyphens!) and irrespective if the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the
hyphens!) does or doesnt take on the wrongdoer the citizens can still always pursue his/her own
action. But if the citizen does or doesnt take action the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN
(Dont forget the hyphens!) can in its own right act as a Sentry. 40

OK, enough now, lets us see how this all get together as to Supreme Court of Victoria judicial
powers being robbed, you may ask! And also what has this all to do with paedophilia?

Well, let us consider the purported Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act 45
1986(Vic).

QUOTE ss51
(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments 50
of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the
matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
END QUOTE

153
p153 29-7-2014
A 1
st
One would hold that the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act 1986(Vic) would
clearly fall within the legislative powers of the State of Victoria and so what could there be
wrong with this.

The question also is about the validity of the request for the Australian Act 1986 purportedly 5
passed by the Victorian Parliament.

His Honour French J himself in his THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS
COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES? stated:
THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES? 10
QUOTE
Section 51(xxxvii) does not expressly confer power upon the States to refer matters or adopt laws made
under it. Nor does it specify the mechanism by which State parliaments shall refer matters to the
Parliament of the Commonwealth or adopt laws made under the referral power. The practice has been to
effect such referrals and adoptions by Acts of the State parliaments. The source of the power to refer is 15
to be found either in the State Constitutions or, by implication, from the Commonwealth
Constitution. This precise question has not fallen for determination.
END QUOTE
And
THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES? 20
QUOTE
There is a strong argument against the exercise of the power in relation to anything less than a universal
referral.
END QUOTE
Also: 25
THE REFERRAL OF STATE POWERS COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM LIVES?
QUOTE
Conclusion
There are no doubt more unanswered questions in relation to the operation of the referral power. It
may be doubtful whether many or any of these questions will ever reach the High Court. 30
END QUOTE

As such, the issue is and remains is the state has itself legislative powers to refer matters to the
Commonwealth of Australia. And one has to consider than also the following by this:
35
.
QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?
Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive 40
at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working
of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole
of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will
have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the
necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question 45
whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes
place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the
question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and
should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of
Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference. It appears to me that 50
this sub-section, which is certainly one of the very valuable sub-sections of this clause, affording, as it does,
means by which the colonies may by common agreement bring about federal action, without amending the
Constitution, needs to be rendered more explicit. One point more especially which needs to be rendered clear
is whether, when we have this federal action, there shall not be a federal means of providing for the necessary
revenue that may be required or for imposing the necessary charges under such legislation. 55
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Is that not implied?

154
p154 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. DEAKIN.-If it is implied, would it not be best to make it explicit? The parentage of this clause, as I
have shown-originating as it does in a body with practically no financial power-casts a certain suspicion on
that reading of it, although, of course, the provision when embodied in this Act would have a different effect.
Still, why not make it clear whether we mean that, when the Federal Parliament has passed federal
legislation for some of the colonies, we shall allow that same legislation to deal with any necessary 5
raising of revenue from those colonies which may be required to give effect to the legislation?
Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I think the point taken by my honorable friend (Mr. Deakin) is one well worthy of
the consideration of the Drafting Committee, and probably the difficulty to which he has drawn attention
could be obviated by some such provision as that which he suggested. But this matter has struck me also
from another point of view, and it seems to me that the provision affords an easy method of amending 10
the Federal Constitution, without referring such amendments to the people of the various states for
their assent. Now, either when the state Parliaments have referred these matters to the Federal Parliament,
and the Federal Parliament has dealt with such matters, that becomes a federal law, and cannot afterwards be
repealed or revoked by the State Parliaments-that is one position, and in that case, of course, the reference
once made [start page 218] is a reference for all time, and cannot be revoked, so that to that extent it 15
becomes an amendment of the states' Constitution, incorporated in and engrafted on the Federal
Constitution without the consent of the people of the various states. On the other hand, if that be not so,
and the states can, after making such reference, repeal such reference, what is the result? You have a
constant state of change-no guarantee for continuity or permanence-in this class of laws, and this might lead
to a great deal of confusion and a most unsatisfactory state of things. My principal objection to the provision 20
is that it affords a free and easy method of amending the Federal Constitution without such amendments being
carried into effect in the manner provided by this Constitution.
Mr. BARTON.-I cannot understand how it gives an opportunity of amending the Federal
Constitution.
END QUOTE 25

What is important is to note that the Commonwealth couldnt raise any taxes from the general
community meaning all taxpayers of the Commonwealth merely because of a State referring its
legislative powers to the commonwealth. Neither was it held that a reference of power could be
withdrawn, as once the commonwealth legislated then it would be beyond the powers of the state 30
which referred the legislative power to repeal this commonwealth legislation.

QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate for the whole 35
general community?
Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply to the general
community.
END QUOTE
40
As such, unless the Commonwealth makes some form of arrangement for the stated to
compensate the Commonwealth for administering matters on its behalf the Commonwealth
cannot accept the reference of legislative powers. Fancy, the state to refer certain legislative
powers to the Commonwealth as to relief itself of a huge financial burden and then taxpayers of
other States having to fork out monies to pay for this. Surely this cannot be deemed appropriate, 45
and indeed could not be accepted.
.
QUOTE 50
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I cannot see any of the difficulties which Mr. Deakin, Mr. Symon,
and Dr. Quick anticipate in connexion with this sub-section. This, of course, is to be an inelastic Constitution,
which can only be altered after great thought and with much trouble. We define what are to be the
boundaries of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. We leave everything else to the states. It may be

155
p155 29-7-2014
A 1
st
that questions may afterwards arise which concern one, two, or three states, but which are not
sufficiently great to require a complete revision of the whole Constitution, with all the troublesome
proceedings that have to be taken to bring about a reform. It would much facilitate matters if these
questions could be referred to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It would not be an easy process. You know how hard it is to get even two colonies to agree 5
to anything.
[start page 221]
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-It would be easy compared with an alteration of the Constitution.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It would not be too easy.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it 10
is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty. We also have a power of quasi-arbitration,
which the Commonwealth Parliament can exercise in an easier way, although not without some difficulty, at
the request of one or more states. Now, is not that a good principle? I do not think many honorable members
will say it is not. It is suggested that we are allowing the states to throw upon the Federal Parliament a
responsibility they ought to take themselves. My answer is that every state wants to aggrandize itself, to 15
increase its authority, and it will only be in very extreme cases that the states will resort to this means of
getting rid of a difficulty. In an extreme case, is there any harm in having a comparatively easy method of
reference, not to troublesome negotiations, nor to the Imperial Parliament, but to the Federal Parliament.
Mr. BARTON.-It might be impossible to dispose of the matter excepting in that particular way.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes. 20
Mr. OCONNOR.-Take a case of dispute regarding a boundary.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Yes, the cases might be infinite. Take a question of disputed territory, for instance.
What could be more proper than that Victoria, if she became reasonable for once, should say-"Look here, we
know we promised to do it; we know we have broken our promises; we acknowledge our transgressions, and
will refer the matter at once to the Federal Parliament"? Who would blame her? Certainly not South Australia. 25
Even in connexion with the question of rivers some point might arise that might concern two or three
colonies, and that could not concern all the colonies. That, again, might be a proper matter for reference, but
it could not be a common matter of legislation in respect of every state. I will now take the points Mr.
Deakin makes. He doubts whether this power of legislation will carry with it a power of raising the necessary
money to give effect to the legislation. 30
END QUOTE

The following is a condition that has ongoing been overlooked by the States in referring
legislative powers to the Commonwealth
35
QUOTE
That, again, might be a proper matter for reference, but it could not be a common matter of legislation in
respect of every state. 40
END QUOTE

Therefore, where all states desire to refer its legislative powers to the Commonwealth of
Australia on a certain subject than ss51(xxxvii) cannot be used as it must then be by way of s128
referendum. 45

QUOTE ss51
(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments
of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the 50
matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;
END QUOTE

As the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act 1986(Vic) was also enacted by other
States then clearly it was beyond the powers of ss51(xxxvii). 55

But wait there is more to this!

156
p156 29-7-2014
A 1
st
.
It must be clear that for example with Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act
1986(Vic) the Commonwealth then commenced to legislate and no guesses as to who had the
judicial powers. Obviously where the Commonwealth enacted Commonwealth legislation then it
became a federal jurisdictional matter. 5

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word 10
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive 15
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph says-
But this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed
by the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the 20
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately
on the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE 25

What the real effect therefore was that when the State Parliament refers legislative powers to the
Commonwealth in regard of any subject matter then it actually is robbing the Supreme Court of
Victoria of its original jurisdiction ion the matter referred to the Commonwealth.
While it may be argued by nutty lawyers and politicians that the supreme Court can exercised 30
federal jurisdiction and so the Supreme Court of Victoria can still exercise jurisdiction, well not
quite so because the Family Law Act 1975 clearly limit the judicial powers to the Family court of
Australia and the Federal Circuit Court. As such, essentially what the Parliament of Victoria did
was to act in blatant violation of the separation of powers.
Obviously one may ask how then could it comply with the separation of powers when any 35
reference of powers beyond doubt would transfer the judicial powers to the Commonwealth?
Well, the simply answer is that if the State electors are requested to amend the constitution as to
refer the legislative powers and its associated judicial powers to the Commonwealth of Australia
then it is the State electors who have made that decision.
40
I will now provide a real life incident to display how absurd the situation has arrived to:
(The set out for clarification albeit limited nevertheless needs to explain some details)

A man in 1986 (For the moment we refer to him as the Father) was notified by the mother of one of his
daughters ( he was not residing with the mother) that the Department of Human Services (Victoria) was 45
taking her to the Children Court in regard of again having some of her 5 children being sexual abused. The
Father decided to represent himself at the Children Court and did so and left with the interim custody of his 1
year old daughter as well as her two youngest siblings until the next hearing, about 5 weeks later. After 5
weeks the police held that the Fathers partner opposed the children to remain with the father at her residence
and so all 5 children were placed in (then) Allambie, Burwood, a children home of the Department of Human 50
Services. Subsequently the Department of Human Services decided that the 5 Children would return to the
mother. The Father appealed this and placed the matter before the Supreme Court of Victoria citing the
danger to his daughter regarding ongoing sexual abuse, and to avoid any possible Family Court of Australia

157
p157 29-7-2014
A 1
st
intervention also applied to have the daughter to be made a Ward of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The
Supreme Court of Victoria appeared to be indeed concerned about the ongoing sexual abuse and granted the
Father the orders sought, making known that access to the mother was pending if she didnt have any
boyfriend around.
In 1987 the Father presented his daughter for ac cess at Allambie, Burwood (an ab out 700 kilometre round 5
trip to do so) when he noticed a man hiding in the background of the unit the mother was staying. The father
refused to allow his daughter to stay with the mother and notified staff that the access orders were that the
mother would not have any male near the child. The father then left with his daughter. The Department of
Human Services then pursued a warrant to force the child against the wishes of the Father to nevertheless stay
with the mother while she had her male friend there also. The Victorian Police (as later discovered) then 10
attended to a nursing home where a woman how had Alzheimers an d no longer was a Justice of the Peace
nevertheless, as the police allegedly were doing on going, to have her sign a warrant. The Minister of Human
Services then went on national television making clear that he authorised tracker dogs to locate the child.
Despite the Father having presented the Victorian Police with copies of Supreme Court of Victoria court
orders nevertheless the police a week later, when the Father attended to the police station formally executed 15
the warrant against the 2 year old daughter (Yes, the warrant was issued against the child and not the Father)
and took the child to Allambie. The Father accompanied the police to Allambie and once there made known
that the police had executed the warrant and now he demanded his daughter back. Staff of the Department of
Human Services then made clear that the Father would never again see his daughter. The Father filed an
application in the Supreme Court of Victoria and within 5 days in feb ruary 1988 the Supreme Court of 20
Victoria heard the matter. Albeit at that time the invalidity of the signing of the warrant was not known then,
nevertheless His Honour I understand was OBrian, made clear that the Department of Human services had
no legal right to overrule the Supreme Court of Victoria and the child had to be returned to the Father that
day. This eventuated.
After this the mothers antics were not to seize and in October 21988 she then applied to the Magistrates Court 25
of Victoria, this even so the Magistrates Court of Victoria has no jurisdiction to interfere with a Supreme
Court of Victoria order, and certainly not with a child that was a Ward of the Supreme Court of Victoria,
under the Family Law Act 1975 in view of the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children) Act
1986(Vic). The Father appealed this decision in the Family court of Australia (as an appeal must be made in
that court) but unlucky engaged a lawyer who afterwards he discovered had no understanding about legal 30
issues. As such the lawyer consented for the Family Court of Australia to exercise jurisdiction, even so it
couldnt do so.
Harris v Caladine[1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991)
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the 35
parties consent to it..
END QUOTE
The Father made known he didnt accept the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia in that the child
cannot be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria as the child was a Ward of the
supreme Court of Victoria and cited also British case law where the British Court faced with a child under 40
wardship of a German Court had both parties consenting to it nevertheless exercising jurisdiction this the
court refused as the child was a ward of the German Court and had to bed returned to the jurisdiction of the
German Court.
Problems continued with the mother who now had married the man referred to above. In 1q992 the daughter
had vagina problems and the Father took her to the local (country) doctor who prescribed cream to be applied 45
daily. The father held that it was better to travel to Melbourne and ask a female friend, a mother of a
daughter, to instead apply the cream as to avoid any possible suspicion he may have acted wrongly with his
daughter. Better to ab void any complications was the Fathers consideration.
Soon afterwards the child again complained about having problems in the same area and the Father asked
another female friend living nearby if she possibly could take to the daughter but the Father would not be 50
present as to avoid any suspicion that he may couch the child. This female friend later made known that the
daughter had made known that she had been sexual abused while on access with her mother. The Father
immediately took her to nearby Department of Human Services and expressed his concerns about matters
What he was unaware of was that the daughters half-sibling (about 1 year older) who still lived with her
mother at the same time, had complained about being sexual abused by the mothers husband and the Children 55
Court had issued orders against this man not to come near the matrimonial home where the child was living.
It was remarkable that despite the Department of human Services being involved in the other case before the
children Court simply blatantly ignored that there were two young girls complained to have been sexual
abused at the same time. That is the active court case with the half sibling and where I reported it regarding
my daughter, where the same identity of the matter was known to them. I must be stated that staff of DHS 60

158
p158 29-7-2014
A 1
st
asked the Father if he wanted to sit in while they questioned the daughter and also warned him that he
obviously was the first suspect, and the father made clear to avoid any allegation he might be couching the
child how to answer he rather stayed out of the room. As such he was not present. Afterwards DHS made
known that the daughter refused to talk about things and so that was the end of it. The Father having been
given the understanding from the female friend that the daughter had been warned that if she talked her father 5
would be killed it was obvious that this was the reason the child refused to talk to DHS. Nevertheless all DHS
had to do was to check the mothers file and they would have been aware that the half-sibling living with the
mother also had complained ab out sexual abuse. What however was clear is that the Father at the time not
applying cream but let a female friend doing so avoided any suspicion upon him in this regard as obviously
they would have asked the child if her Father had touched her at the particular area and then she obviously 10
was able to say he never had. The Father then decided to take the daughter to the Royal Children Hospital and
explained his concerns. A Specialist then checked out the child and wrote a report that the healing process
was consistent with what he understood was the last time this child had been on access.
Finally the matter came before Strauss J and he had the gall to say he didnt know if the Father may have
done it, this even so he was made aware by the mothers lawyer that the man (her husband) had been ordered 15
to stay away from the matrimonial home by the children court of Victoria but claimed the court had it all
wrong. The Father had no contact with the half-siblings and neither had his daughter when not on access and
so it couldnt be claimed that the half-sibling was out up to make her complaint of sexual abused by the
mothers husband.
The mother failed in her custody case and also in her application for child support. Yes, Victoria Legal Aid 20
was paying for her to apply for $50.00 a week child support this even so she had not had the child in custody
for the previous 5 years! The Family court of Australias Registrar then notified the Father that there would
be a court hearing, this the Father telephonic queried and it was confirmed, but upon arrival (a 700 kilometres
round trip) was advised there was no hearing listed. As such the Father, a severe critic upon the Family Court
of Australia was given ghost hearing dates. Problems continued but to keep this limited I will not set it all out 25
but at one hearing a judge held the Father in contempt and fined him $500 plus about 2,000.00 cost. The
father appealed as the trail judge, despite notified twice, had failed to charge the Father read him his legal
rights and allowed him to plea his case. An interim stay of orders was refused by another judge claiming that
His Honour would know the rules and would never make such errors. Subsequently the Full Court of the
Family Court of Australia having perused the transcript set aside the orders upon the basis the father had not 30
been charge, not read his legal rights and neither allowed to place his case. As such merely summary had
orders made against him without any proper trail. In October 1994 the Father made known to a friend that he
was given the understanding from court staff that judges had been overheard to teach the Father a lesson and
he would be imprisoned no matter what. In December 1994 the Father appeared before Hase J and opposed
the proceedings but got no where and so a few days later appeared before the High Court of Australia before 35
Dawson J who held however that because of the Cross Vesting Act the Family Court of Australia had
jurisdiction, this even so no application had been made within the provisions of the Cross Vesting Act (years
later the High Court of Australia in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 held the Cross Vesting Act was
unconstitutional). The father did explain, but to no avail, that it was intended to imprison him. Subsequently
on 19 December 1994 the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia handed down the earlier mentioned 40
finding that the orders were set aside, and that day Hase J began to hear contempt proceedings against the
Father,. On 20 December 1991 Hase J refused to step down from the bench to give evidence from the witness
b ox when the Father requested this in view that Hase J had been making statements form the bench as if
giving evidence which in fact were incorrect in fact but where Hase J simply created this on his own account
without any evidence for this by either party. On 20 December 1994 Hase J then adjourned the matter until 45
22 December 1994 for further evidence to be given on 22 December 1994, unbeknown to the Father Hase J
then issued orders that the Father was to be imprisoned for 21 days and the daughter was to be placed with
the mother for one months and not entitled to have any contact with the Father. As such the sentence was pre-
determined even so the case was still going on. On 22 December 1994 further evidence was presented and
then Hase J (again albeit a different set of orders) ordered the father to be imprisoned for 21 days and the 50
child to be with the mother. After 14 days the Father attended to a hearing before the Full Court of the Family
court of Australia and made known that he had served the 21 days b cause of remissions that were applied but
Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson J held that the father was incorrect as the Family Law Act 1975 didnt allow
for this, regardless that the Father explained it all, and ordered the Father to go back to prison to serve the
remaining 7 days. However the governor of Prison (beforehand alerted to the issues) ordered the father to be 55
immediately released. The father immediately went back to the Family court of Australia and announced he
was released. The next day he went again to the Family court of Australia and sat in the court room (but no
court in session) when a court sheriff attended and asked the Father to come out of the court room into the
lobby, the Father did so. Sheriff then explained that Nicholson CJ had ordered that I was to be taken to the
prison as the Father had still to serve time. The Father explained that the Sheriff better called the Governor of 60

159
p159 29-7-2014
A 1
st
prison about matters. The Father then went back into the court room and now the court was in session and it
was a Full Court and Nicholson CJ was presiding over it and to his annoyance the father sat in the court.
Later the Family Law Act 1975 was amended to prevent remission of sentence as is ordinary applicable to
other prisoners due to certain circumstances in the prison.
5
The Father yet again appeared before the High Court of Australia on 27 February 1995, Dawson J, and
Dawson J held that obviously it must have been an error for Hase J to have pre-issued the orders (different
version) on 20 December 1994 and while the Father maintained the Cross Vesting act couldnt apply Dawson
J held it was a Family court matter. The fact that in law pre-issued orders also invalidate the subsequent
orders seemed to be of no concern to Dawson J. 10

The Father in about 2000 appeared again before the Family Court of Australia and the judges then made clear
that because of the 1999 legislation (Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999) that was backdated by 10
years then the Family Court of Australia orders were now to be deemed Supreme Court of Victoria court
orders, and as such the orders were valid. 15

There were problems with this as the original orders issued by the Magistrates Court of Victoria (without
jurisdiction) were issued in October 1988, which is more than 11 years before the 1999 act came into force.
As such the backdating of 10 years couldnt cover the original orders and all subsequent orders fall so to say
by the wayside where the original order was and remains without jurisdiction. 20

The Father had all along insisted that he relied upon the 1988 Supreme Court of Victoria court orders which
the Family court of Australia claimed were no longer valid, but somehow then in 2000 claimed that the
Family Court of Australia court orders were deemed to be Supreme Court orders. So, the father had been
imprisoned for insisting to comply with Supreme Court of Victoria Court orders and refusing to comply with 25
purported Supreme Court of Victoria court orders.

Because litigation in State Court within State litigation provisions versus Federal litigation provisions are
different it means that the 1999 purported legislation denied a Victorian upon rightful entitlements and a
FAIR and PROPER trial. 30

Here we had that as far as the Father was concerned he was dealing with judges who were not
just protecting paedophilia but in fact making sure the child would spend a month with the
mother to continue to be sexual abused. Remarkably at no time was there any assistance
provided for my daughter regarding this re-occurring sex al abuse she was forced to suffer bas 35
result of Family Court orders.
As this involved my daughter, I am therefore pursuing to try to avoid ever again another child to
be subjected to sexual abuse with the assistance of the judiciary. Below I have quoted an email
received which sets out that (unnamed) Australians are involved in hunting down naked children
and raping/killing them. Unlikely this will involve ordinary citizens as royals generally do not 40
have them around on such so to say misconceived pleasure trips. It might be interesting to
know which high position persons are travelling or known to travel to those areas.

What the above however proved clearly was that this irresponsible and unconstitutional conduct
by Members of Parliament to legislate and then to try to legislate themselves out of the mess they 45
created no matter the harm they have caused is generally left unknown. They needlessly destroy
lives and yet do as if they are so good in legislating and in government. This is why with my
special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL I could understand even so not
approving why there were people giving me the understanding they would like to hand every
judge and politicians as to them that is the best way to make sure they never do it again and a 50
warning to others.

When one is dealing with judges who appeared to me to not just protect but in fact aid and ab et
by their orders paedophilia then all the knowledge in the world about laws, etc, will be to no use
as they are determine to ensure that paedophilia can succeed. 55

160
p160 29-7-2014
A 1
st
When you have Members of Parliament who are more concerned about how they can enjoys a
quick rich scheme to rip of taxpayers then to bother ab out learning about what the true meaning
and application is then we simply have no democracy.
.
What should be obvious is that the Parliament by passing the Commonwealth Powers (Family 5
Law-Children) Act 1986(Vic) robbed the Supreme Court of Victoria of its inherent judicial
powers. That can never be accepted. Only if State electors by way of State referendum provide
for this can this be deemed appropriate in accordance with s123 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution act 1900 (UK)
10
It would be utterly wrong to assume that s123 only related to physical boundaries of the State
because it also applied to the rights of the States, including the judiciary. As such only a State
Referendum can diminish the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

While I am not making any accusation but merely an example, it could be that there may be 15
paedophiles in the Parliament who deliberately wanted to remove judicial powers form the
Supreme Court of Victoria where it (at least in my experiences) seeks to protect children from
paedophiles, and so by having provided for the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law-Children)
Act 1986(Vic) by this effectively the Supreme Court of Victoria powers to protect children have
been sidelined, and the Family Court of Australia by this may be able to ensure that paedophiles 20
can roam at large.

Perhaps, as we no longer have impartial courts but those that are Business Unit 19 We, the
People, ought to set up peoples courts where people accused are dealt with according to law
and not denied a fair and proper trail. 25

Quite frankly I couldnt care less if you like my writings or not as after all if you did your job in
the first place I would have no need to write at all. We. The people, are entitled that the person
who occupies the Office of Governor so to say earns their keep.
. 30
As Governor you have the prerogative e powers to withdraw the commission of any Minister of
the Crown who fails to act appropriately. That is not just your right but also your duty and
obligation.

Convention)
QUOTE
Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other
provision is made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred 40
pounds.
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses. 45
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement
of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not. 50

161
p161 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:
That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.
Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move: 5
That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against 10
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of
parliament who was being paid 500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of 15
the Crown plus his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational
manner; and to settle a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own
judgment, and certainly not to the judgment of the public.
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I certainly think that we have done as much work as we are likely to do well
to-day, and I doubt very much whether the Committee is prepared to give proper attention to further work to- 20
night. I should like to say a word or two in reference to what the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, has stated in
regard to the absence of provision on matters of detail. The omission was intentional so far as the drafting
committee was concerned, because we thought it was not our business to encumber the constitution
with matters of detail. One of the first things to be done by the parliament of the commonwealth in its first
session would be to settle the salaries of ministers, and a great number of other matters of that kind. We have, 25
therefore, given them power to deal with this subject. We did not think it necessary to make this in an sense a
payment of members bill. We lay down, however, the principle that they, are to receive an annual
allowance for their services, and we thought that it should start in the first instance at 500.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
END QUOTE 30

Again:
Convention)
QUOTE 35
the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time.
END QUOTE

As such the legal principle, that is if the State constitution provides for any payments as a salary,
is not to be set by the Remuneration Tribunal but decided upon by the Parliament t itself. 40

Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to 45
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.
Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

162
p162 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those
colonies which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement
of expenses, because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are
actually paid a salary for their work, which they are not.
END QUOTE 5

Clearly Members of Parliament entitled to receive an allowance cannot be paid any monies
that may be deemed to be a SALARY such as superannuation as a superannuation is
related to a salary earning person.
Neither can any Minister/Member of Parliament receive any payments in regard of the position 10
once leaving Parliament. Members of Parliament cannot receive an allowance towards
reimbursement of cost when they are no longer in Parliament. Likewise ministers of the crown
can no longer receives monies for a position they no longer hold.

Convention)
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654] Crown, the amount he was
previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that kind in the clauses of this
bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than the bald provision already 20
made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament who was being paid
500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus his salary as a
member of parliament.
END QUOTE
25
Therefore it cannot be that Ministers of the Crown are receiving both allowance and a salary.
And Members of Parliament cannot be provided with a salary like in come and/or superannuation
as then their seat is automatically vacated.

Convention)
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
The omission was intentional so far as the drafting committee was concerned, because we thought it
was not our business to encumber the constitution with matters of detail.
END QUOTE 35

The constitution act 1975 clearly cannot be deemed to be a constitution, besides the lack of
validity as it was not approved by way of State referendum, as it contains what I deem too much
rubbish about a wife and children that do not belong in a constitution, as those so to say dirty
linen provisions are for an ordinary act. 40

The above indicates that we have been under ongoing incompetent leadership and while you
have not been in the job for that long, nevertheless you must accept responsibilities for having
also been involved in some of the rubbish, such as appointing more Members of Parliament into
an Office of Profit then is permitted by law. 45

Rest assure I am on a mission to clean up the rot, and you may get the idea that with my
knowledge I can expose a lot of rot going on and it is merely a matter of time before citizens are
fed up with the inaction and then decide to clean up the system by themselves.
50
It seems remarkable that with my self-professed crummy English and without English being
my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language
nevertheless I can expose so much rot that those self-proclaimed constitutional lawyers (an
oxymoron) basically have no clue about. You may or may not be willing to address matters

163
p163 29-7-2014
A 1
st
appropriately and seek to stop the rot, but I can assure you that I have dealt with far too many
people contemplating suicide because of the rot they were subjected to and it is long overdue that
this is appropriately address with or without your involvement.
It is not relevant to me if those who are paid to do a job are under the delusion of some kind
because in the end, We, the People, are entitled they perform or simply so to say ship out and let 5
more competent persons take the job.

Why on earth you have stood by to allow this unconstitutional robbing of Supreme Court
of Victoria judicial powers is beyond me.
10
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/breaking-news/downer-supports-constitutional-
recognition/story-fnjbnxok-1226966201669
QUOTE
Downer supports constitutional recognition
by: Julian Drape, AAP London Correspondent 15
From: AAP
June 25, 2014 11:23AM
AUSTRALIA'S new high commissioner in London has used one of his first public
speeches to back recognition of indigenous people in the constitution.
FORMER foreign minister Alexander Downer, who recently replaced Mike Rann as 20
Canberra's man in the UK, urged expats to vote Yes in any upcoming referendum.
"The first people of our country have for many years in our country been treated as second-
class citizens," the high commissioner said at Australia House.

"We need as a country to raise their status to reflect the incredibly important role they 25
played in the original formation of human civilisation in Australia."

Mr Downer said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, since European settlement,
"had what you might, politely, call a hard time".
30
Changing the constitution would be a unifying moment, he said.

Australia House is the largest polling booth each federal election with around 15,000
expats usually casting a ballot there.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott in January promised to finalise by September a draft form of 35
words for changing Australia's foundation document.

164
p164 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Any changes would have to be put to a referendum, which requires a majority of votes in a
majority of states to be successful.

The Recognise campaign is raising awareness about the push to include indigenous people
in the constitution and remove sections that discriminate on the basis of race. 5

Director Tanya Hosch was a guest at the high commission in London on Tuesday. She's
also encouraging expats to support the campaign.

"There is a chance of failure here, so we have to actually act," Ms Hosch said. 10

"Despite that strong political and community support no one can take this for granted."

Ms Hosch said some people would seek, sadly, to derail the campaign.
15
"But we know there will be a great and terrible cost if we don't achieve this for our nation.

"The price we will pay is to condemn Australia, for another generation, to formal
separation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians."
20
Ms Hosch said constitutional recognition would enhance Australia's international
reputation for fairness and justice.

British Prime Minister David Cameron's chief spin doctor, Australian Lynton Crosby,
attended Tuesday night's event. 25

The former Liberal party strategist's research company, Crosby Textor, is advising the
Recognise campaign.
END QUOTE
30
As the Federal Parliament is a constitutional Parliament it cannot amend the constitution
without approval by s128 referendum but more over s128 referendum cannot alter the preamble
of the English constitution.

165
p165 29-7-2014
A 1
st
You see how tax monies are wasted time and time again by those who claims to have Rhodes
Scholar education but to me seems to be . well no need to inset it.

I now quote the article/email I referred to above. It is not known to me what if any of the claims
made in that document are proven but safe to say that it should be of concern to anyone that 5
Australians are referred to and may be involved.
While I can accept that a Minister of the Crown may require to travel aboard strictly for his
Ministerial duties (without wife/husband, children, grandfather, grandmother/family tree
relatives accompany him/her) it should be purely related to the Ministerial functions and not
some holiday get away trip. As for Members of Parliament wanting to visit garbage tips, etc, let 10
them learn how to clean up the garbage they themselves inflict upon citizens and they would
achieve a lot more then holidaying at taxpayers expenses they are not entitled upon.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear they are not being paid for work and so forget
about overseas or interstate trips at expense of taxpayers.
15
QUOTE Der Honigmann sagt
Hans Mitterer There are skeletons in the cupboard of those we trusted to care for the land we are in; - but then
- perhaps we have erred all our lives. Hans http://derhonigmannsagt.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/european
To Undisclosed-Recipient@
Today at 5:25 PM 20
There are skeletons in the cupboard of those we trusted to care for the land we are in; - but then -
perhaps we have erred all our lives. Hans
http://derhonigmannsagt.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/european-royals-killing-naked-children-for-fun-at-
human-hunting-parties-engl/#comments
25

Der Honigmann sagt

http://derhonigmannsagt.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/european-royals-killing-naked-children-for-fun-at-
human-hunting-parties-engl/#comments 30
Der etwas andere weblog
Feeds:
Beitrge
Kommentare
Dustcloud: Ein High-Tech-Game fr die Strae Schieen wird Salonfhig 35
22. Juni 1941: Die Legende vom berfall
European royals killing naked children for fun at human hunting parties
engl.
22. Juni 2014 von beim Honigmann zu lesen
By DNA | 40
This is one in a series of articles taken from eyewitness testimony before the International Common Law
Court of Justice in Brussels. Five international judges are examining evidence of child rape, torture, murder
and kidnapping allegedly done by global elite members of the Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult
network. Regular Ninth Circle child sacrifices were said to take place in the catacombs of Catholic
Cathedrals, the Vatican, on private estates and groves and government military bases in Belgium, Holland, 45
Spain, Australia, Ireland, France, England and the US. At least 34 child mass grave sites were identified in
Ireland, Spain and Canada and refused excavation by the respective governments, Crown of England and
Catholic Church. Named as present in Ninth Circle activities were Pope Francis, former Pope
Ratzinger;Anglican, United Church of Canada and Catholic Church officials including Cardinals; members
of European royalty including Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip; officials of the Canadian, Australian, UK 50
and US military and governments including the USAs CIA, plus prominent government ministers, judges,
politicians and businessmen from the US, Belgium, Holland, Canada, Australia, France, Ireland and the UK.

166
p166 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Teens were drugged, stripped naked, raped, hunted down in the woods and killed by European royals
according to this weeks latest eyewitness to testify before the International Common Law Court of Justice in
Brussels. The woman was the fourth eyewitness to give accounts about these human hunting parties of the
global elite Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult network. A former member of the Netherlands criminal 5
drug syndicate known as Octopus testified that victims were obtained for these human hunting parties from
juvenile detention centers in Belgium and Holland.
In 2004 I was an involuntary witness to torture, rape and murder sessions of drugged children performed for
a group of high ranked people of the Netherlands stated a woman. I was taken to a hunting party in
Belgium close to Brussels where I saw two boys and a girl ages 14 to 16, hunted and killed by global elites. 10
The human hunting party was heavily guarded by the Netherlands Royal Guards. I was told that King Albert
of Belgium was present.
Four eyewitnesses confirmed that as children and youths they were forced to attend human hunting parties
where they and other children were raped, with some killed, and deceased boys penises were cut off.
Allegedly there was a Dutch countryside palace where boys penises were displayed like trophies on a wall. 15
Some hunting parties were hosted on the grounds of Belgium Queen Beatrixs Palace.
Dutch therapist Toos Nijenhuis claimed that as a four year-old she was forced to witness murders of children
that involved former Pope Ratzinger, a Dutch Catholic Cardinal, plus the father of Netherlands Belgium
Queen Beatrix and Bilderberger Founder, Dutch Crown Prince Alfrink Bernhard. I saw the former Pope
Joseph Ratzinger murder a little girl another witness confirmed. It was at a French chateau in the fall of 20
1987. It was ugly, horrible and didnt happen just once. Ratzinger and Bernhard were some of the more
prominent men who took part.
In Ireland, Spain and Canada 34 child mass grave sites were discovered and appeared linked to Ninth Circle
activities. The largest was the Mohawk Indian Residential School in Brantford Ontario where child remains
were identified in 2008 before the Catholic Church, Canadian government and English Crown shut down the 25
dig by professional archeologists. The 2013 ICLCJ Court had found Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip

167
p167 29-7-2014
A 1
st
guilty for the Oct. 10 1964 disappearance of ten native children from the Catholic residential school in
Kamloops British Columbia. In the first two weeks of the 2014 court witnesses identified Dutch and Belgian
royal participants in the rape and killing of Mohawk children and newborns. Named were Bernhard and King
Hendrick, consort to Queen Wilhelmina of Holland.
Alleged to be present during the human hunting parties were the late Prince Johan Friso and his wife Mabel 5
Wisse Smit, former ministers, the top man of the Dutch army, the under secretary of the Raad Van State in
the Netherlands, the Vice-Roy next to Queen Beatrix and other global business and political leaders including
some from the US. Surely the present King Willem Alexander and King Filip and their wives know about
this abuse and murder of children said one eyewitness.They do nothing about it and likely are the ones to
stop investigations and prosecutions. 10
In January 2014 the brother of the king of Holland Prince Johan Friso passed away in a coma after these three
Dutch-language websites shown here reached the internet. The websites revealed that Friso was at the human
hunting and killing parties.The story came on the internet after years of trying to move the policy and justice
department in the Netherlands to act against the criminals, an eyewitness said. Nobody did anything to stop
these criminals, probably because Queen Beatrix and King Albert likely interfered with the investigations. 15
Human hunting parties were said to take place on the grounds of Belgium Queen Beatrixs Palace in the
Netherlands. Two witnesses have named former Pope Joseph Ratzinger and Queen Beatrixs father the
deceased Prince Alfrink Bernhard, as being present at child sacrifices. Both were said to be Nazi
sympathizers.
The ICLCJ Court received a collection of Jesuit archival records about a child sacrificial cult known as the 20
Knights of Darkness. In 1933 the Knights were established by the Catholic Jesuits and Nazi Waffen S.S.
Division. The records showed Ratzinger was identified as a member of the Knights while working as an S.S.
Chaplains assistant at the Ravensbruck Concentration Camp in Germany. The records also stated that
Ratzinger participated in child sacrificial rites using kidnapped children from the camps or political prisoners.
Another court document called the Magisterial Privilege indicated child sacrifice was a regular occurrence at 25
the Vatican. At the tender age of 12 Svali of San Diego County California claimed she was brought to
catacombs beneath the Vatican to witness the sacrifice of a three year-old drugged boy. In this video her
interviewer said that 24 years prior a Maria told him she witnessed another satanic child sacrifice rite in the
same Vatican Catacombs.
Last week an Irish police investigator reported to the ICLCJ Court that the close to 800 babies buried in a 30
Catholic Nuns septic tank were dismembered, decapitated and in bits and pieces signs that they could have
been murdered in Satanic child sacrifice rites. In the last two months the ICLCJ Court has heard these heart-
wrenching testimonies about the rape, torture and murder of children as recently as 2010 by Catholic leaders,
European royal family members and other global elites. Murder sites of the Ninth Circle Satanic Child
Sacrifice Cult were said to be in the catacombs of Catholic Cathedrals including the Vatican and on private 35
estates, military establishments and groves in Belgium, Holland, Spain, Australia, France, England and the
US.
The ICLCJ Court has been overwhelmed with newly discovered evidence and a number of new witnesses
coming forward to testify about Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult activities. They have uncovered
Ninth Circle Satanic Cult member possible involvement in international child sacrifice, kidnapping, 40
exploitation and drug rings. The five international judges and 27 jury members were expected to remain in
session for at least a year due to the complexity of the cases.
Amnesty has been offered to citizens or employees of the Vatican, Crown of England, churches or
governments willing to give sworn testimony or evidence that leads to the prosecution of these global elites
suspected of committing crimes. Rewards up to 10,000 euros or around 13,660 dollars was available through 45
the ICLCJ court.
The ICLCJ Court had over 450 Common Law Peace Officers in 13 countries, with 51 local chartered groups
operating. Local organizing funds were available for common law groups that applied through the
International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State. To contact officers of the court or ITCCS Field
Secretary Kevin Annett, email or call: itccscentral@gmail.com, info@iclcj.com, admin@iclcj.com, 50
hiddenfromhistory1@gmail.com, 250-591-4573 (Canada), or 386-323-5774 (USA)
________________________

168
p168 29-7-2014
A 1
st
http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/17/royals-killing-children-for-fun-hunting-parties
.danke an Renate P.
.
Gru an den International Common Law Court of Justice in Brussels
Der Honigmann 5
END QUOTE Der Honigmann sagt

As usual this correspondence has involve ed a lot of work, that is on my own behalf, but I know
it is worth it because my readers will not only enjoy discovering the truth but can evaluate for
themselves if you and others are up to the job performing or not. 10

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL 15
.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
END QUOTE 26-6-2014 correspondence Mr Chernov Governor of Victoria 20

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28526103
QUOTE
28 July 2014 Last updated at 23:40
The pre-nuptial agreement that can end a 25
happy marriage
By Mai Noman BBC Arabic Service

169
p169 29-7-2014
A 1
st
In the Arab world, when a man gets married he makes a payment to his bride's family.
However in parts of Yemen when a brother and sister from one family marry a brother and
sister from another, dowries are often not paid - but this can have tragic consequences.
A young man approaches a friend to ask for his sister's hand in marriage - in exchange for
his own sister's hand. This is "swap" marriage or "shegar" as it is known in Arabic, an 5
ancient marriage custom still practised in Yemen.
The way it works is: "I'll marry your sister, if you marry mine."
But the other side of the bargain is: "If you divorce my sister, I'll divorce yours."
Swap marriage came about as a way to help poorer families avoid paying dowries, and
that is still a big attraction to some families in Yemen today. A dowry can come to about 10
$3,500 - even though most people earn less than $2 a day.

When there is no money to pay for the dowry and other wedding expenses, that's when
"people marry shegar" says Mohamed Hamoud, a village elder in Sawan, not far from the
capital Sanaa. 15
But the survival of swap marriage also owes something to the fact that Yemen is a deeply
proud and conservative country whose strict adherence to ancient traditions and values
have kept the fabric of society unchanged.
"Our traditions are too important to us," Hamoud says.
He acknowledges, though, that the practice is in decline, for one simple reason: "It causes 20
too much misery."
That's because couples forced first to love can sometimes then be forced to divorce.

170
p170 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Nadia, a young woman in her late 20s, married a man whose sister married her brother. It
was a happy marriage and she had three children - before her brother's marriage broke
down, and she and her husband were torn apart.
"Swap marriage is the worst kind of marriage, it's better to spend all your life alone than to
marry this way," she cries. 5
Her children were taken away from her, including her youngest, who was then seven
months old.
"I begged them to return my daughter to me, I told them, 'It's not right, she needs me to
breastfeed her.' I asked them, 'What have I done wrong?'"
She had done nothing wrong. For her in-laws it was simply a tit-for-tat response. What 10
happened to their daughter had to happen to her.

171
p171 29-7-2014
A 1
st
Nadia considered resorting to the law to get her children back, as the law does side with
mothers in these cases, but she decided against it. In practice, tribal and social customs
tend to overrule the law of the state.
She did not see her daughter again for three years. "When I saw her for the first time after
all those years I thought to myself, 'She won't recognise me.' I imagined her saying: 'You 5
are not my mother how could you be my mother when I haven't seen you since I was a
few months old?'" she says.
Many religious scholars oppose swap marriage and have declared it un-Islamic on the
grounds that the dowry is an essential part of the Muslim marriage contract.
"The dowry payment is meant to provide women with some financial security as they leave 10
their home," Yemeni sheikh Mohamed Mamoun explains.
Continue reading the main story
Find out more

Waleed and others tell their stories in Yemen's Swap Marriages on the BBC World Service 15
on Tuesday 29 July from 04:30 GMT
Or catch up on iPlayer
But in some cases swap marriages occur even when families do pay a dowry. In fact,
whenever two families exchange daughters, the couples' fates will most likely be sealed
together. 20
Brother and sister Waleed and Nora married their cousins in shegar, but both families paid
dowry and agreed not to make the two marriages dependent on each other.
The swap in this instance was meant to ease the mounting pressure on parents to find
suitors for their daughters. In a country where more than a quarter of females are married
off before the age of 15, a girl's family starts to worry if their daughter is not asked for by 25
her mid-teens. It was also a case of following the examples set by previous generations,
as Waleed and Nora's parents had happily married their own cousins in shegar.
Neither sibling wanted this marriage and yet they did little to try and stop it.
"We're not the type of children who could say 'No' to their father," says Waleed.
They decided to surrender to what they saw as their destiny and give the marriages a 30
chance. But it wasn't long before Waleed's relationship started to face problems.
After nine months, and against his family's wishes, he decided to divorce his wife.

172
p172 29-7-2014
A 1
st

Waleed's in-laws, overcome with grief and anger, then decided to return his sister to her
parents in retribution, ignoring the original agreement that the marriages would not depend
on one another. And also ignoring the fact that Nora had turned out to be happy with her
husband. 5
"Of course I felt guilty about my sister, she had to live away from her husband," Waleed
says. But he insists he couldn't bear his unhappy marriage any more.
The dilemma of whether to choose your own happiness over your sibling's is just one of
many complications couples face when entering this kind of marriage.
Fortunately, through the intervention of family and friends, Nora was reunited with her 10
husband, but not all those who "swap marry" are as lucky.
Nadia is a case in point, and her pain and heartache will be familiar to many Yemeni men
and women.
Listen to Yemen's Swap Marriages on the BBC World Service on Tuesday 29 July from
04:00 GMT 15
END QUOTE

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details.
20
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

20140729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee-Marriage Issues-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20140729-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee-Marriage Issues-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like