20190713-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re NO To Amending The Constitution To Recognise Aboriginals

ISSUE: 20190713- Re: “NO” to amending the constitution to recognise Aboriginals
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, with your track record to have defeated on 19 July 2006 the Commonwealth that
COMPULSORY VOTING is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and considering your extensive writing
about Aboriginal issues over the decades what is your view about a proposed referendum to
maned the constitution to recognize Aboriginals?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I have been in management of factories and something I
repeatedly found was that you got people placed in positions mouthing off have so to say lacking
any brain power to even work out details. Look at this Ken Wyatt, in my view he is grossly
incompetent to be a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. And with Anthony Albanese to reportedly
having made clear:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/morrison-to-veto-voice-as-part-of-constitution/news-
story/c9753bbe3595470032ac7fa95636931e
Morrison to veto ‘voice’ as part of Constitution
QUOTE
Anthony Albanese yesterday declared it was “realistic and doable” to hold a successful referendum on
constitutional recognition in this term of parliament.
END QUOTE
I view he also lacks any competence to be even considered suitable to be a Minister let alone to
be some alternative Prime Minister.
The first thing is that the constitution was created not to recognize anyone but to define powers
of the 4 bodies that were created, being the Parliament(legislators), executives (Government), the
Judiciary (Court) and the Inter-State Commission (s101). The Preamble is a statement of the
British Parliament why it enacted the Constitution and Section 128 referendum cannot alter this.
Actually I spend decades talking with various Aboriginals (mainly Elders) and they cannot even
agree with each other what they desire to do.
Let us be clear, regardless if you are so called Aboriginals (whatever that really means) it never
was a drawback to become a Governor of a State, such as South Australia proved in the past.
Many have achieved positions as doctors, judges, lawyers, etc, and so on. In every society we
have people who cannot make it in life and well are we going to lower the bar to suit them so
they can lazy about and get it all delivered on a silver platter, or are we imply making clear that
nothing is rewarding but to achieve by making an input. I recently read a story about a young
woman who grew up in the slums of a country, collecting at a local tip to get plastic recycled,
and now is attending university in Australia! She had to learn the language but she did and is a
clear example that if you have an incentive and work towards it then you more than likely can
succeed. People have come from all different forms of environments of their native countries to
Australia over the decades and not just made Australia their home but proved to be no less if not
more eager to contribute towards our society as any person born in Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/10/indigenous-referendum-wont-held-if-it-looks-like-failing-ken-wyatt-says
Indigenous referendum won't be held if it looks like failing, Ken Wyatt says
QUOTE
p1 13-7-2019 © 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
At the same time, Wyatt said supporters of constitutional recognition need to respect those with opposing
views, including those of Pauline Hanson, who claimed that, as an Australian-born white woman, she too was
“indigenous”, saying he admired the One Nation leader.
END QUOTE
This is what the Framer of the Constitution stated:
Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public life. I am an
Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I am associated assume a
position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE
William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official and labour
movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a bootmaker.
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE
Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional Convention (1897–98)
that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901. His support of Federation was over the
objections of many in the labour movement, and served to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill
had been "wholly shaped in a conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
END QUOTE
Hence, Senator Pauline Hanson is right on the ball that anyone who is born in Australia is a
native. My children, grand-children and greatgrandchildren who were born in Australia are all
natives!
Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians
Aboriginal Australians are the various indigenous peoples of the Australian mainland, Tasmania,
and often the Tiwi people. This group contains many distinct peoples that have developed across
Australia for over 50,000 years.
Reality is, at least from my readings, there is no such thing as a specific Aboriginal race. There
were different group in what is now called Australia and well they had no common language
and/or tradition. They were warring amongst each other with killings involved also and certainly
didn’t have a flag for all of them. To refer to them as Aboriginal is a swindle (see also below the
court issue against deportation) because many were natives coming down via China and other via
Indonesia, etc. Many still resides around the world and as such even attempting to have the
constitution recognizing Aboriginals (not that I seek to imply it would be appropriate or
permissible) what then is an Aboriginal? Can any so called Aboriginal living in Indonesia or
China or wherever then claim to be recognized in the constitution? In Tasmania I understood
they tried to do a test and they failed because race as I understand it is not something that is
governed by DNA. Some Aboriginal may have moved from Australia to nearby countries and
well their heritage is from Australia but will they nevertheless be recognised in the constitution
being Aboriginals regardless where they reside? Is the Constitution going to differentiate
between an Aboriginal who’s heritage was in Australia but his forefather moved to another
country and so they are not deemed Aboriginal for constitutional purposes, whereas those who
were say from a family heritage of say China but moved her say 50 year ago then they are
deemed Aboriginals for constitutional purposes?
There's no such thing as an Aboriginal 'alien' – and the high court ...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia.../theres-no-such-thing-as-an-aboriginal-alien-and...
May 11, 2019 - This week, two Aboriginal Australians who have experienced such treatment brought their cases to
the high court, asking the court to rule that ...
QUOTE
The two men involved in the case are Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms. After being convicted and sentenced
for certain criminal offences, they had their visas cancelled and were detained in immigration detention and
threatened with deportation to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. All of which would be entirely
unremarkable, except for the fact that Love and Thoms identify as Aboriginal Australians.
They were each born to one Aboriginal Australian parent and one non-Australian parent. Both men were born
outside Australia but came to Australia as children and have lived here since. Importantly, both would appear
to satisfy the widely accepted tripartite test for Aboriginality – they are of Aboriginal descent, they identify as
Aboriginal, and they are accepted within the community. Love is a descendant of the Kamilaroi people of
modern day New South Wales and Thoms is a member, and native title holder, of the Gunggari people of
Queensland. These connections to land and community – a central part of Indigenous cultural heritage – were
emphasised by a number of the justices of the high court in oral argument on Wednesday.
Every day is a day to reconnect since I've been reunited with my own blood family
Love and Thoms are not the first Aboriginal Australians to have their visas cancelled and to be threatened
with deportation, however they are the first to bring their cases to the high court. With the assistance of a
high-powered team of lawyers, they argued that: “For descendants of Australia’s first peoples, an indelible
part of the Australian community, to be ‘aliens’ for the purposes of Australia’s constitution, is antithetical to
their indigeneity and to the social, democratic and political values which underpin and are protected by the
constitution.” To rule them “aliens” would undermine Love and Thoms’ cultural identity, sense of belonging,
right to country and Indigenous knowledge (whether that be language, cultural identity or knowledge about
land, seas, places, songs, stories and social practices). Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the deportation
of these two men would diminish and devalue their cultural obligations and responsibilities.
In some ways, the question to be decided by the court is esoterically legal, turning on the meaning of a single
word – “aliens” – in section 51(xix) of Australia’s constitution. Yet to frame the question in purely legal
terms is to miss its hard political edge. When the high court decides today’s case it will be deciding the
boundaries of Australia’s political community. The absurdity of excluding any Aboriginal Australians from
that community should be patently obvious, especially at a time when Australia is moving slowly towards a
constitutionally enshrined voice for Aboriginal people. To declare these two men “aliens” would be a great
injustice, denying their sense of identity and making them feel as if they do not belong to a community. As
Justice Edelman said in the course of oral argument, the word “alien” literally describes a person from
another place. No Aboriginal person can sensibly fit that description. It is to be hoped that the high court will
say so when it eventually hands down its judgment in the coming months.
END QUOTE
It that meaning that Aboriginal having Dutch gene of my family then I equally can claim being
an Aboriginal and have the same special rights, regardless of being born in The Netherland?
In my view the judge of the High Court of Australia committed treason when declaring in Sue v
Hill that somehow the Commonwealth was an independent country. Our constitution doesn’t
allow for this and the judges could only adjudicate within the confines of the constitution:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make 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
It means that anyone born within Commonwealth of Australia is constitutionally a Subject of the
British Crown.
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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
The High Court of Australia has no judicial power but to interpret the constitution as to the
provisions that always existed in the constitution and not otherwise. This mean that if this
purported Queen of Australia didn’t exist in 1900 when the constitution was enacted by the
British Parliament then it cannot now exist either.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE
If the so called independence of the Commonwealth of Australia didn’t exist in the enactment
then it cannot now exist.
It is clear that even British national from the United Kingdom could be deported as criminals and
as such where a person was born outside the Commonwealth of Australia then regardless if their
heritage is from Aboriginal descent from those who resided in Australia nevertheless it is
appropriate for the Commonwealth to deport them.
What we have however is that to enshrine Aboriginals in the constitution then it may very well
result that criminal can prevent deportation merely on claiming that somehow in their DNA
might how they are having some relationship with some person or persons who once resided in
Australia. And where most people were having DNA from Africa then I that meaning that no one
could be deported from Africa? Surely that I not what this is about.

QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
The resolutions conclude:
An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.
What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE

Our constitution clearly provides for the Federal Government to act against criminals even if they
are British nationals.

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
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
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
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
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
My wife was born on what was Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic) and is a Slav. There are
Slavs in many part of Eastern Europe including Russia, and surely being a Slav doesn’t mean
you can demand special rights in whatever country regardless if your Slav heritage originates
from such a country.
Various Dutch ships were ship wrecked at the coast of what is now Western Australia. Many
sailors then assimilated with tribes there. It was recorded in a French logbook that copper
coloured natives with blond hair were moving about and Dutch type of huts were found and the
ground had been worked with items planted. Is it now that someone who have Dutch heritage
then can go to The Netherlands and when having committed a crime can oppose deportation
because of so to say Dutch genes?
It should be clear that to enshrine, apart of it being inappropriate, to recognize Aboriginals then
you are asking for problems down the road as we already now see that criminals desire to use
their so called Aboriginal status to prevent deportation.
I published in 2007 a book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation - CD

9780975176061-Barcode-ISBN978-0-9751760-6-1-
And it sets out not only why the High Court of Australia concealed relevant part of the Hansard
debate but it also sets out how disastrous the 1967 con-job referendum was.
To make it plain and clear, Subsection 51(xxvi) was inserted in the constitution for no other
purpose but to DISCRIMINATE against a race! For this purpose the Framer of the Constitution
specifically excluded Aboriginal natives not to be discriminated against. But in 1968 the con-job
referendum was held to include Aboriginals in Subsection 51(xxvi). The referendum was not to
alter the ability to DISCRIMINATE against a race! As such, where a legal provision provide for
DICRIMINATION then where the Aboriginals then were included it was to specifically
DISCRIMINATE against them.
Yet somehow Subsection 51(xxvi) was used not to discriminate against Aboriginal natives but to
discriminate against the GENERAL COMMUNITY.
.
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the
commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised
only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject
to the provisions of this constitution.
We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of
the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a
parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the
commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they
exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to
make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. 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 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
Again:
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;
A proper reading of the Hansard indicate that RACE was not just if you were other than a
Caucasian, being Chinese, etc, but was in fact referring to nationalities such as an Afghans, etc.
https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/prime-minister-right-to-reject-divisive-voice-referendum
Prime Minister Right To Reject Divisive ‘Voice’ Referendum
QUOTE
“If the government chooses to pursue any changes to the constitution it should remove the provisions
that currently refer to race – section 25, and section 51 (xxvi),” said Mr Wild.
For media and comment: Evan Mulholland, Director of Communications, on 0405 140 780, or at
emulholland@ipa.org.au
END QUOTE
Now here we have someone seeking to abolish 51(xxvi) if Aboriginals are recognized in the
constitution another ill suggested issue without the person seemingly understanding what it is
about.
.
QUOTE
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution,
where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the
empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom,
and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties,
but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they
neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think,
ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes.
END QUOTE

In my view KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of
Australia was a ridiculous decision by the High Court of Australia as the Commonwealth cannot
gain itself legislative powers from making some kind of a treaty in complete opposite of the true
meaning and application of the constitution.

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
Our constitution was designed not to discriminate against natural born Australians regardless of
their racial heritage. While much is argued about the previous Subsection 127 I will merely refer
to my past extensive set out why this was justified for particular reasons such as to in fact protect
Aboriginals from being possible slaughtered.
Let us be clear about it when you get people proposing some referendum not even having worked
out the finer details then it underlines that such a Minister is not a CONSTITUTIONAL
ADVISOR but a troublemaker who should not be a Minister.
.
*.So you oppose any referendum to recognize Aboriginal in the constitution?
**#** Indeed, and it is utter stupidity to even suggest this. The same with having special seats in
the parliament reserved for Aboriginals. Our constitution is that anyone born in Australia should
be equal and yet we have numerous laws that are discriminating against ordinary Australian.
*.After more than 50 years after the Subsection 51(xxvi) amendment referendum Aboriginals are
still making an issue. Isn’t that showing that no matter what they will never be satisfied and
desire more and more?
**#** It would take reams of paper to set it all out but trust me you do not desire to go down that
path to discriminate against the general population as now unconstitutionally is already going on.
Constitutionally not a single Aboriginal are entitled to have franchise and for that be a Member
of Parliament. This, as once a legislation is enacted within Subsection 51(xxvi) regarding a race
then they lose their franchise. So this Ken Wyatt better consider how to rectify matter instead of
trying to create further problems.
Australia Letter: Indigenous Australians Want a ‘Voice to Parliament.’ What Does That Entail?
12 Jul. at 12:46 pm
The New York Times <nytdirect@nytimes.com>

To: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
QUOTE
It’s unclear exactly what form this recognition would take — which meant the news was met by
commentators with a mix of interest and caution. But many advocates say it must include a “Voice to
Parliament” outlined in the Uluru Statement — a body of Indigenous Australians that would be allowed input
for the first time into policies and legislation affecting them.
“The voice is not a metaphor for voicelessness and powerlessness. It is a proposal for hardheaded structural
reform,” wrote Megan Davis, a professor of law at The University of New South Wales who delivered the
Uluru Statement in 2017. It would afford political empowerment and a seat at a table traditionally occupied

by professional bureaucrats, she added.
END QUOTE
Aboriginals who have franchise already are casting their voices in election. So, what they really
are seeking is that they are given privileged position to have more right than the ordinary
Australians. They are always going on about wanting equality but reality I they want is a
preference above ordinary Australians. And that I view could lead to civil war!
Let us be clear about it that a law cannot have 2 totally opposite applications. As such where
Subsection 51(xxvi) was to DICRIMINATE against all people of a particular race then it cannot
be that adding Aboriginal to this then somehow when it comes to Aboriginals the provision is in
fav our of them but not to other race.
The argument as to Section 25 I also misconceived. It were the States who could in regard of
franchise discriminate to disallow a particular race to vote (exercise franchise). As I mentioned
above race was not race as to black, brown, yellow or whatever colour of kin a person had but
could include a person who had a specific nationality regardless of their roots in ancestry.
Chinese nationals are of numerous different races! Likewise those of Afghanistan, etc. You find
that a race therefore can constitute a group of people with a particular trait amongst them. One
could argue that those who are convicted of a certain serious crimes are then a group of people
who can be denied franchise within Section 25 of the constitution. It should be understood that
the Commonwealth has no constitutional power to legislate as to any kind of Commonwealth
electoral roll a Section 41 specifically leaves federal franchise up to the relevant State. Meaning
that you can only gain franchise in federal elections if you obtained State franchise. Section 41
only allow the Commonwealth to set the age of an ADULT, but it cannot deny any ADULT it
federal franchise where this ADULT gained State franchise.
Moreover those Aboriginals who had colonial franchise automatically obtained State franchise
and by this they automatically obtained Federal franchise.
QUOTE
Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the
Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous
Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained
to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years
a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected,
be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
END QUOTE
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89309/united-states-v-cruikshank/?
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
QUOTE
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United States has not
conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own
creation in the States.
END QUOTE
In the USA there I this issue that people who are undocumented immigrants (as they refer to) not
having State citizenship should not vote in federal election however reality I that the USA
constitution provide that representation of each state in the Congress (what we call Parliament) is
based upon the number of PERSONS residing in the state regardless if they are undocumented
immigrant or not. Likewise any state in the Commonwealth of Australia could grant any person
residing in a particular State franchise in State election regardless if they are of foreign
nationality. They then could vote in federal elections and the representation of that state would
have to be calculated upon the number of people residing in that State irrespective of the
nationality of each person. The Commonwealth could not even deny such a person of foreign
nationality to vote in federal elections.
Aboriginals who had State franchise at the time of the first federal election voted in that March
1901 federal election. As such the nonsense of the con-job 1967 Amendment of Subsection
51(xxvi) exposed, at least to me, that no one understood the true meaning and application when it
came to Aboriginals. You cannot give Aboriginals more rights in franchise by amending the
constitution to discriminate against them. Rather that technically in my view Ken Wyatt and
other Aboriginals are unconstitutionally holding a seat in the parliament because they actually
lost their citizenship and so their franchise when the Commonwealth commenced to legislate
against the Aboriginal race. It mean that within Subsection 51(xxvi). In fact every Aboriginal
regardless if a lawyer, doctor, judge, etc are constitutionally not holding any citizenship. This,
because the Framer of the constitution embedded in the constitution the legal principle that where
the Commonwealth legislated against a race then they by this would lose their
citizenship/franchise. This as otherwise they could use their number to overturn the legislation
against them.
More over Subsection 51(xxvi) only permit legislation against a specific race. As such any
Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander Act is unconstitutional.
O, here we have a purported Minister for Aboriginal Affair who I view is unconstitutionally
holding this position once he is in that position for more than 3 month, this as the Governor-
General can appoint anyone to be a Minister of the Crown to be a CONSTITUTIONAL
ADVISOR provided the person after the expiry of 3 months becomes a Member of Parliament.
In my view Ken Wyatt I not a constitutionally valid Member of Parliament nor any other
Aboriginal and so cannot serve for longer than 3 months.
It appears to me that we have a huge pack of idiots as lawyer advising Member of Parliament,
etc, if they do not even grasp the basic of the true meaning and application of the constitution.
.
As I successfully and unchallenged submitted to the Court on 19 July 2006 the Commonwealth
of Australia has absolutely no constitutional and o legislative power to define citizenship.
.
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON:
naturalisation and aliens that is the naturalisation of aliens
END QUOTE

QUOTE
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

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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
But let us take first his position in regard to the Commonwealth. Under the power which you have
given to the Federal Parliament to make laws regulating immigration and aliens, you embrace every
possible set of circumstances under which any person may enter the bounds of the Commonwealth. As
you have power to prevent any person from entering any part of the Commonwealth, you have also the
power to prevent any person from becoming a member of the Commonwealth community. There is no
territorial entity coincident with the Commonwealth. Every part of the Commonwealth territory is part
of the state, and it is only by virtue of his citizenship of a state that any person within the bounds of the
Commonwealth will have any political rights under the Constitution. 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.
Mr. WISE-Is that clear?
[start page 1754]

Mr. OCONNOR.-If the territory does not stand in the same position as a state, it is 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.
Mr. WISE.-Before the 14th amendment was passed it was very much questioned whether a citizen of
Washington had any rights at all, because Washington was only a territory.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; but what the honorable and learned member says really supports my
argument. The thirteen original states occupied a very small portion of the area now forming the
United States of America, and of course the question might arise as to what the position of a person
who is not resident of or a citizen of any state, but a resident of a territory, might be in relation to the
Commonwealth. But I do not think that that question will arise here, because we cannot imagine, I
think, any portion of the Commonwealth becoming a territory now, unless it has been a state at one
time-unless it is some portion of a state which has been ceded to the Commonwealth, and in the cession
to the Commonwealth there is no doubt that care will be taken to define what the rights of the residents
of the territory would be in regard to the political rights of the Commonwealth. It appears to me quite
clear, as regards the right of any person from the outside to become a member of the Commonwealth,
that the power to regulate immigration and emigration, and the power to deal with aliens, give the right
to define who shall be citizens, as coming from the outside world. Now, in regard to the citizens of the
states-that is, those who are here already, apart from these laws-every citizen of a state having certain
political rights is entitled to all the rights of citizenship in the Commonwealth, necessarily without a
definition at all.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE

QUOTE
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.
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
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 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.
END QUOTE

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
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.
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
END QUOTE

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
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
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
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
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
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. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
.
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

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
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
Constitution.
END QUOTE
Again the High Court of Australia has absolutely no judicial powers to interfere and/or overrule
the legal principle embedded in the constitution!
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,
"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.
END QUOTE
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour".
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
As I formally during the 19 July 2006 legal proceedings challenged the validity of the purported
Australian Citizenship Act And the Commonwealth neither any State Attorney General
challenged this (see my Section 78B NOTICE OF CONTITUTIONAL MATTERS) then then
for all purpose and intend when the Court upheld both my appeal unchallenged (I represented
myself) then by this the purported Australian Citizenship Act I and remains ULTRA VIRES Ab
Initio.
We are now (next week) 13 years later and we get purported Member of Parliament going on
about amending the constitution when they do not even understand the nonsense they are having
falling from their mouths.
Mind you the Commonwealth in regard of the 19 July 2006 appeal made known it was not in the
public’s interest to oppose my appeals. The then Attorney-General of the State of Victoria made
known that it would abide by the decision of the court.
No matter what a person may hold to be his/her views regarding my writings submitted to the
Court in my 409 page ADDRES TO THE COURT in the end I successfully over a period of 5
years stood my ground and succeeded against all the lawyer of the Commonwealth and the state
on constitutional ground. If therefore any Attorney-General had hold that it could succeed against

me to defeat me then an appeal to the High Court of Australia could have been the follow up.
None did so. Perhaps they just held that my submissions including details about war crimes,
treason, etc, against John Howard and others was not something they really wanted to have dealt
with before the High Court of Australia, this even so a 4 December 2002 court order issued by
consent already was for the High Court of Australia to hear and determine the S78B NOTICE OF
CONTITUTIONAL MATTERS. This however is still outstanding. As such the legal challenge
against the purported Australian Citizenship Act is still so to ay alive before the High Court of
Australia, however it already refused on 4 occasion to allow it to be accepted for filing and to be
heard upon it merit. And as I understand it this kind of unconstitutional conduct is what former
Senator Rodney Culleton was about. After all within section 75r of the constitution the Framers
of the Constitution specifically embedded the legal principle in the constitution that any person
can petition the court for a judicial decision regarding constitutional iue12

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
Yet, you find the High Court of Australia as I view it as a form of tyranny issue order of cost
against parties who pursue constitutional issues.
I can only suggest that before someone carries on like an absolute idiot about what the
constitution stand for and perhaps how to amend it that person first has some active brain power
engaged as to learn FACT from FICTION and not make an utter fool of himself/herself.
Despite that I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and the States on constitutional
grounds on 19 July 2006 not a single Minister ever bothered to try to consider what I am writing
about. Fool them to ignore reality and having nonsense dibbling from their mouths. It may just
indicate the lack of sincerity and credibility they have for what they profess to pursue. They seem
to merely have thought bubbles for political purpose regardless of the utter nonsense they are
talking about.
In my view it are the politicians and the judiciary who have hijacked our constitution and are in
the process committing treason. We have to reclaim our constitutional and other legal right.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


20190713-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re NO To Amending The Constitution To Recognise Aboriginals

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

20190713-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re NO To Amending The Constitution To Recognise Aboriginals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20190713- Re: “NO” to amending the constitution to recognise Aboriginals

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

p1 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

This is what the Framer of the Constitution stated:

Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

The resolutions conclude:

p4 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

p5 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

I published in 2007 a book INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation - CD

p7 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

The New York Times <nytdirect@nytimes.com>

p8 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 17-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

p10 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. HIGGINS.-You had it in the Draft Bill.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. WISE-Is that clear?

[start page 1754]

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p12 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

p13 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

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

p14 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

p15 13-7-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like