20180604-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Education and Repayments, Etc, & The Constitution

ISSUE: 20180604- Re: Education and repayments, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, would you mind explaining why the Federal government donates other people’s monies,
being the taxpayers to foreign countries such as for education when it demands Australians who
are paying taxes to repay any education loans?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, it really is that the politicians are too well aware that the
sheeple will go along no matter what. Well until finally they are held legally accountable. But for
that you need an impartial judiciary where the judges are sitting in judgment not as to what a
decision may benefit their future but what is right within constitutional context.
While the Letters Patent provides for the appointment of impartial judges in my experiences we
got judges who couldn’t give a darn about the rule of law but selectively use what suits them go
make predetermined rulings. In one case I listed the numerous breaches by opponent
lawyer/barrister, including violating court orders, court rules and legislative requirements and I
put it to the judge that if I even had made one such violation my appeal would have been
dismissed. He responded that indeed he would have but he wasn’t concerned about the opponent
lawyers. As such he applied DOUBLE STANDARDS.
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/why-world-jewry-and-eu-hate-polands-judicial-
reforms/ri23655?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=5a025a750d&mc_eid=2c57cd92c9
QUOTE
by Thea Arian (1,275 views) on Sat, Jun 2, 2018
The author is a recent immigrant to the UK from Poland. A wise man once said "only
two kinds of people do not care about the law, those who break the law and those who
make the law". The law is often associated with justice which, while often true, is not
always so; an important distinction that escapes many of us.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
A very important point is this, judges are seldom elected, they pass a few exams, practice as
lawyers for a few years and then, based on their peers’ recommendations, they are elevated to the
position of a judge.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The judiciary is supposed to complement the government, not antagonize it. The judiciary is supposed
to interpret the law, not make it. The judiciary is supposed to know its own bounds and enforce it, as
well as make the government know its bounds as well. When a judiciary actively doles out anti-national
decisions that the government is forced to follow to the detriment of the nation, reforms are urgently
and critically needed as the judiciary is basically acting as an enemy agent enshrined in law.
END QUOTE
QUOTE From: Levinson, Sanford V [SLevinson@law.utexas.edu]

that the focus of our attention should be on the judiciary and on reinforcing the view that the
Constitution is just terrific and needs only correct interpretation by honorable judges
p1 4-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
END QUOTE
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.
Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.
Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
END QUOTE
When one look upon the issue that the Commonwealth must act for “peace, order and good
government” then where in this is the funding of foreign nations in this?
Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws
which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
More over when the constitution was amended to show “benefits to students” then where in this does it
authorize the Federal Government to provide for student loans for Australia but not likewise
apply the same constitutions to those education funding to other nations?
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions;
(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness
and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students
and family allowances;
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one
which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE

Clearly the Commonwealth cannot use non-uniform legislation that some persons may not have
to repay a loan (apart from the question of constitutionality of such loan) where others do not
have to when they reside in foreign countries. Effectively an Australia could live in another
country and receive free education paid for by the donations by the Federal Parliament without
having to repay a single cent whereas the same person doing it in Australia would be bound to
repay the so called loan.
Remember
QUOTE https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/07/gillard/
Cheque Mates: Gillard, Bishop & Hillary — Quadrant Online quadrant.org.au
Julia Gillard lavished an unprecedented $292 million in taxpayer dollars on the Clinton-dominated Global
Partnership for Education, where she was later appointed chair. Imagine the howls if Tony Abbott had
underwritten a Bush-backed charity and saw his career similarly prosper Australian governments ...
END QUOTE
https://www.facebook.com/sheaintrightmate/
Turnbull/Bishop handed out $500M overseas aid in only 8 weeks between March and April
making Rudd/Gillard look like saints
QUOTE
25 April 2017 $110M Iraq Turnbull goo.gl/u575pn
humanitarian help
24 April 2017 $10M Yemen Bishop goo.gl/TxrqDP

humanitarian help
3 April 2017 $240M Afghanistan Turnbull goo.gl/6EUnVt

humanitarian help
22 March 2017 $40M new - The Philippines Bishop goo.gl/Looazn

$60M existing education
15 March 2017 $71.5M Myanmar Bishop goo.gl/ZMWq11

Education
8 March 2017 $65M (+$10M new) PNG and Pacific Bishop goo.gl/kbpojM
Gender Equality
1 March 2017 $120M (+$20M new) Somalia and Bishop goo.gl/2Ma6Ra

Sudan humanitarian help
1 March 2017 $5.5M Countering Bishop goo.gl/7PykZP

violent terrorism supposedly anti
-developing terror
countries
END QUOTE
* What you seem to indicate is that the Federal Government not at all is using Subsection
51(xxiiiA) as it refers to benefits and not loans?
**#** Well, look at Section 96 of the constitution.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
96 Financial assistance to States
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the
Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such
terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
END QUOTE
This means that without Section 96 the Commonwealth couldn’t provide special loans to the
states. There is no provision in the constitution for the Commonwealth to loan monies to private
individuals. Actually the Universities are not owned by the Commonwealth either, and as such it
cannot be claimed to be some preposterous Debt to the Commonwealth.
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
* Are you saying that all those student loans are unconstitutional and so no one has to repay
them?
**#** In my view those loans are unconstitutional as they are beyond the powers of Section 96
and I am not aware any other constitutional provision exist for the Commonwealth to act as some
loan shark against the very people who are paying the taxes.
* Well you really have let the cat loose amongst the pigeons if this is true! Imagine billions of
dollars that are claimed to be outstanding do not need to be repaid.
**#** Let us have a look at Amanda, who was a foreign Minister and later was sent to Europe to
serve as a diplomate. She was reportedly studying Chinese at taxpayers cost but somehow didn’t
have to repay a cent. Why on earth should she not have to repay this while ordinary Australians
would have to? In my view, politicians who are using up taxpayers monies for enriching
themselves with studies nothing to do with their portfolio, that is if they have any, then they
should pay themselves for their studies. What we have is that man y who so to say borrow
monies from the commonwealth after completing studies then move overseas to try to avoid to
repay the alleged study debts. Wed wreck their family life in the process also.
Let us not ignore that many if not most of the politicians in Parliament enjoyed free university
studies when Geoff Whitlam provided for this. It is just that after they themselves achieved even
to become Prime Minister they turned against the very people they were to represent. This very
much is also realized in the UK (United Kingdom).
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12435/rape-gangs-oxford
Rape Gangs: A Story Set in Leafy Oxfordshire
QUOTE
In all this at least one key element is missing. What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid
at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities
to go on, doing nothing to stop them?
END QUOTE
And this is what I have been on about to hold politicians and judges legally accountable!
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE

* Does it make sense at all to charge students for a loan, even if it was constitutionally
permissible?
**#** In my view, not at all. What we have is that say a doctor or a lawyer faced with this huge
financial burden to repay a loan has a considerable obstacle course ahead of him/her. Forget
about having a family when you are struggling in a job to establish yourself and having this huge
financial burden above your head. Then such a professional must seek to charge
patients/customers as to be able to repay any loans. As such, society is charged more and this
drives up the health cost and other issues. In my view the Federal Government should
acknowledge that it mishandled it all and should simply can cel all debts and to provide for any
Australian who was born in Australia to have free education at universities provided they pass a
proficiency test for the particular course(s) they seek to follow
* Excuse me that is billions of dollars to be wiped off?
**#** Well, as with the Wakim 27 of 1999 case the court was concerned about the lack of
constitutionality of it, and well the consequences has to follow. Instead having some politician
studying at taxpayers cost Chinese not at all relating to her placement she should have studied the
true meaning and application of the constitution while in Parliament. The same with other
politician’s rorting the system.
* You might send the Commonwealth bankrupt?
**#** Well there are people promoting the American Glass –Spiegel doctrine and I gather that
the Commonwealth never would go broke under that system. After all the Commonwealth Bank
loaned moneys to the Federal Government in the past while it was owned by the Commonwealth.
If the Commonwealth had not sold of CBA then then it could have used that in a backdoor
manner to get the students to borrow from that bank. However, I view it cannot directly itself
loan monies to students.
* Did you borrow monies to study at university?
**#** My dear INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, my university was and still is the School of Life and
my CV is that I am a human and not a robot. I worked myself up into management because of
my abilities and not on some documentation that many might have paid for as to show pretended
certifications. As I used to say to opponent lawyers, after I defeated them in litigation, it is not
how much you know but that you know what you need to know and know and able how to
present the case. After all no matter how good a case might be if you cannot competently present
it before the court then you may end losing the case for your client. In the Colosimo case there
was this barrister filing along the bar table (notably also invalid) a huge pile of documents,
including sworn affidavit material and stacks of authorities (case law reports) expecting that
there was no way I could go through a huge pile of documents while also presenting the case.
Just that I always had this streak that I somehow can find the hidden issues quickly. So, I merely
scanned quickly through it in a mere seconds, and noticed a word in one document being a
closet. I stopped there and then drew Her Honours attention to the judgment the opponent
Barrister had filed and indicated that this judgment precisely supported Mr Colosimo’s position
and was adverse to her client. In the end Her Honour accepted this and I succeeded in the case.
The barrister tried to claim that it was the instructing solicitor who had handed her the
authorities. Well, in my view that was not an excuse as she as the barrister should have checked
what she was filing. I had this in other cases also where the opponent barrister had my objection
to file a certain document had overruled and then when I start to use it the barrister then submit
to withdraw the documents filed as evidence. I then make clear that regardless if it was
withdrawn I was entitled to use it. My objection was a mere gimmick as I had no doubt I would
be overruled and I was all along planning to use this in my advantage. In the first hearing I
represented Mr Colosimo I objected to a solicitor and barrister to be in the court room claiming
they had no legal standing and after some submissions they were both ordered to leave.
* And you had no what they call formal education at a university? You never attended to any
university?
**#** Well I used often to travel to Monarch university.
* If you did what subject matter were you interested in?
**#** Legal issues.
* Any particular tutor?
**#** Copy machine.
* Your kidding me, are you?
**#** I used to travel more than 370 kilometers to Monarch University copy machines to copy
their law reports. It was an about 740 round trip.
* Your kidding me, are you?
**#** No. and most times I never even read the copies.
* So a sheer waste of time and monies?
**#** Not at all, while I copied I would read parts of the reports, even if only a small paragraph
and then discovered that usually it happen to be the very important issue of the entire case. I
simply made a pen mark on the copy and assembled my own Authorities from this and for
decades used this in the courts. Not uncommon even judges would claim that this (what I stated)
was not part of the case. One judge made clear he was the senior barrister in the case and what I
stated never was part of it. I would then open my suitcase and provide him with a copy of the law
report and yes the judge admitted I was right after all. I didn’t know then but decades later one of
the law students then studying law at Monarch university I met as an opponent art the bar table
and when her mother became a widow I married her mother.
* Who won the case involving your (later) step daughter?
**#** Well years later she told me I was the better lawyer of the day.
* Are you a legal practitioner?
**#** Not at all. Actually it would interfere with my manner of litigating. One doesn’t have to
be a legal practitioner at all provided you know how to go about matters. I represented
solicitors/barristers and well they obviously respected my manner of litigating. One a barrister
questioned me over a 3 days period on all kinds of legal issues and then when it came to
constitutional religious issues he claimed he finally had discovered something he held I was
wrong. Well I cited the case and as he had been doing for the 3 days he immediately checked on
the internet about it and well admitted that I was indeed correct. I then explained I had used it
previously used in litigation and succeeded then so I knew too well I was correct about it.
* What I gather from our conversation is that intelligence is not gained from some university
degree and anyone who possesses a certain amount of common sense and intelligence can make
it?
**#** Right on. After all various US presidents never had any formal education in legal studies.
They just sat under a street light, too poor to pay for electricity, and educated themselves and
then commenced to represent parties in court. If indeed the list on a CV would be to govern a
person’s intelligence and considering that those directors of companies such as AMP had the
share value going from about $22 a share to about $4 a share then I for one cannot see how their
list on their CV proves them to be competent. If you respect your fellow man no matter his
position in life then that is the first basis to succeed in life.
* Anyone ever suggested for you to go into politics so you could fix the darn
**#** The politicians have in my view unconstitutionally obstructed voters to become
candidates. I have stood for political elections as an independent candidate. Consider the
following
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-That is an alteration of substance which I will explain. I agree with the
object of the clause as proposed to be limited by the amendment which I am now proposing. That is to say, I
quite agree that any elector who, at the establishment of the Commonwealth or afterwards, has, under the
law in force in any state at the establishment of the Commonwealth, the right to vote at elections should not
be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from exercising that right.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
This Bill also contains a provision in favour of electors, which is altogether absent from the Bill of 1891; that
is, a provision for the protection of the voting right, when the right has been granted, so that no adult person
who, at the establishment of this Constitution, or [start page 2468] at any time afterwards, acquires the
right to vote for the Legislative Assembly in his own colony or state can be deprived of that right by
any law passed by the Federal Parliament. This is a provision which was introduced at the instance of the
Hon. Mr. Holder; and although the matter has been the subject of complaint from time to time, the instance I
have cited may be appealed to as one evidence of the want of foundation of accusations against this Bill on
account of its alleged illiberal character.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
his appointment.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
With respect to the qualification of the electors-a subject discussed in this Convention-the proposal of
the committee is that it shall be the same as that for the electors for the more numerous branch of the
parliament of each state.
END QUOTE
Hansard 15-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON: One is that everyone born in the Commonwealth is qualified to become an elector.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment which
has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that we make an

alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these disqualifications shall
operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making provision
exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power?
Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the adoption of the
constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament. I would ask hon. members also
to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance, the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may
change. It may be very different twenty years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony."
As Sir Samuel Griffith has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some
colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In New Zealand
felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that which have taken place in New
Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause
as it stands you will put it in the power of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the
qualification by making a change in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal
parliament, and that it ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the
construction of the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter.
The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of allegiance. The first
part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of it. For instance, it says, "Any person
who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power." The clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting
as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed. But, once a
man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because a thing is done. The
amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in which the matter should be put would be,
until the removal of the disqualification caused by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the
clause; but the wording of the clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to
the federal parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted.
The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to
limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that
should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in
the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as
these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be
rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were
undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony
or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a
violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one
thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the
commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the
case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into
parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first
subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their
interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. Persons who have taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country
for the purpose of joining in legislation.
An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted?
The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie!
Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points!
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is
larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked
well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the
constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to be
supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is quite
possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath of
allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it is
quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the
electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such
a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a
state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might
be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing
them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some
cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been
attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they
offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to
avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I
might say that, although it is far less objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment
that has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony.
END QUOTE
Do notice the statement “Persons who have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be
classed in the same category as citizens of the country for the purpose of joining in legislation.”.
What the Framers of the Constitution made clear that unless you took the oath of alliance you
could be a Member of Parliament that is if you were not residing in a foreign nation as a citizen.
Citizenship is where you reside and nationality is the country you were born or gave an oath to.
QUOTE Mr. CLARK:
Representative government is not an expedient or a makeshift to obviate the necessity of having every
man brought into one chamber to give his vote; but it is a substantial institution devised for the special
purpose of endeavouring, so far as possible, to get the intelligence and the judgment of the community
to decide what shall, and what shall not, be law, and not simply to count mere heads
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
The result of that was necessarily that many avenues of usefulness in political life were closed against
everybody, but those who were either wealthy themselves or who had wealthy relations who were inclined to
help them. I was surprised, indeed, when I found that with that experience staring them in the face, they had
in some colonies of Australia-certainly in one-gone back to the old system and established a property
qualification. I have no doubt that under the terms of this resolution, the recommendation of this
Convention will go in this direction, that is, that they will require no qualification at all in the member,
except to be a voter; that they will approach, in point of fact, very nearly to what is the present rule in Great
Britain, which is, or, was, regarded as a most aristocratic country. If that is done throughout Australasia, the
result will be, if the people at the same time have the power of electing their lieutenant-governors, that every
great post but one in the whole of Australasia will be open to every man of ability, or of such ability or of
such force of character, or occupying such relations of public life, as will secure him the votes of a large
constituency; and an immense amount of talent that under other circumstances would be shut out from
serving the state will have a fair opportunity open to it, and there can be no doubt that numbers of able men
will, under such a system, be found who otherwise would have remained undiscovered, useless to their
country, and probably many great measures will hereafter be carried which could not have been carried under
any other system than that which I am convinced will be recommended for adoption. I cannot help thinking
that the advantage of getting this amount of ability and energy into play is almost wholly over looked, and,
but very little conception is as yet formed of the spur that will be given to enterprise and energy, and all that
can make men happier and better off by opening all these places of great importance to every, single citizen
of each state in the confederation.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
I have no doubt that under the terms of this resolution, the recommendation of this
Convention will go in this direction, that is, that they will require no qualification at
all in the member, except to be a voter;
END QUOTE
What this means to me is that any so called deposit and number of signatures is unconstitutional
as to be a candidate in a political election as it denied a voter to become a Member of Parliament
where the voter may not have the financial means to pay for the (ever increasing) deposit. Also a
person who resides in a remote country area may not be able to obtain the number of signatures
that a person would be able to obtain residing in a city and so it discriminates in that regard
against a person and yet has absolutely nothing to do with the competence of this voter to be a
Member of Parliament.
* Taking it that you have no university degrees I am astounded how you can so plainly explain it
all when those politicians in the Parliament and indeed the judges fails to understand and
comprehend it all.
**#** As I stated, it is not how much you know but you know what you need to know and
knows how to present it.
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
* So, you are indicating or seem to indicate that the judges with their legalities are incorrectly
interpreting the constitution?
**#** To some extend they are making incursions in legislative powers and in other ways are
violating the separation of powers also by pretending constitutional meanings they should be
aware are not so. The constitution should be interpreted as it was for the ordinary person.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE

There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE

There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
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,
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
.
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
* I take it you do not agree with the Sue v Hill decision?
**#** In my view this and many other decision are a violation of our constitutional rights. The
judges have no power to use some backdoor manner to amend the constitution or to twist and
infringe upon the true meaning and application of the constitution!

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* I think you said plenty and I cannot disagree with what you have set out. Having said so the
question will be if others will also go along with your set out.
**#** As I stated before I can implement matters if I were in power as it doesn’t require the
Parliament to correct unconstitutional matters. What is unconstitutional remains unconstitutional
and cannot be circumvented. Anyone with a law degree who cannot understand/comprehend this
better hand back his law degree.
* I think we did enough for today.
**#** I agree and well let it now be up to the reader to address matters appropriately.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20180604-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Education and Repayments, Etc, & The Constitution

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

20180604-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Education and Repayments, Etc, & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20180604- Re: Education and repayments, etc & the constitution

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

QUOTE From: Levinson, Sanford V [SLevinson@law.utexas.edu]

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

p2 4-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

24 April 2017 $10M Yemen Bishop goo.gl/TxrqDP

3 April 2017 $240M Afghanistan Turnbull goo.gl/6EUnVt

22 March 2017 $40M new - The Philippines Bishop goo.gl/Looazn

15 March 2017 $71.5M Myanmar Bishop goo.gl/ZMWq11

1 March 2017 $120M (+$20M new) Somalia and Bishop goo.gl/2Ma6Ra

1 March 2017 $5.5M Countering Bishop goo.gl/7PykZP

p4 4-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 15-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

p7 4-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted?

The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie!

Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points!

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

* I take it you do not agree with the Sue v Hill decision?

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p12 4-6-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like