071202 00 request royal commission - iraq

8/14/2019 071202 00 Request Royal Commission - IRAQ

1/50

p1 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)PLEASE NOTE: You may orderbooks in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax

0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail [email protected] See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:48:33 +1100 (EST)

From:"Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com.au.

Subject: Re: ROYAL COMMISSION - etcTo: [email protected]: [email protected]

WITHOUT PREJUDICEMr. Kevin Rudd [email protected]

.5

"MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL".

Re: ROYAL COMMISSION into the involvement of Australian troops with the invasion

into the sovereign nations Afghanistan and Iraq, including all other associated matters,

including the conviction of the late President Saddam Hussein and others.10.AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.Mr. Kevin Rudd,.15Either we have a Constitution or we dont. If we have a Constitution then no one is above theConstitution and we must ensure that those who appear or may have placed themselves above theConstitution (including any legislation enacted within constitutional powers and limits) areappropriately dealt with..20Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a

state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As

regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole25constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.

.

My claim is that Mr. John Howard and others unconstitutionally and/or unlawfully engagedthemselves in a conspiracy to invade sovereign nations and this in breach of Section 24AA of theCrimes Act (Cth) also, and participates and/or otherwise permitted/condoned or otherwise was30involved in the mass murder of many civilians in the sovereign nations Afghanistan and/or Iraq,including but not limited to CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, WAR CRIMES, TREASON,TREACHERY, DESTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE and other conduct within theaforementioned countries as well as within the Commonwealth of Australia and elsewhere, etc..35

I have set out below some quotations of the Hansard records of the Constitution ConventionDebates where there is an extensive debate as to prerogative powers and the exercise of it. Whileit brings out that basically the Governor-General acts on advise of the Minister, albeit he canrefuse to exercise prerogative powers where he deems it against the interest of the people, thePrime minister has no powers to act without the prerogative power exercised by the Governor-40General to declare war or peace. This is a criteria that is very much relevant to the issue of whenis there a war declared and when is peace declared, and so if the unconstitutional war in Iraq andso likewise in Afghanistan is still going on where the Governor-General has not proclaimed anypeace in regard of either country!


2/50




Indeed, this might also be relevant to the pay-structure of soldiers serving in such countries as ifno peace is declared then technically they are still in a war zone and should be entitled to theappropriate pay structure in place for serving in a war zone..I pursue a ROYAL COMMISSION to investigate these and other relevant matters including the5conduct of military officers such as the then General Cossgrove, in view that I personally didprovide him with correspondence about an invasion being unconstitutional/unlawful..Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that10the 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.

.Therefore this is not about holding Ministers of the Crown responsible just in the Parliamentbefore their peers but to hold them lawfully accountable as "officials" normally are not held15accountable for their conduct before the Parliament..While it is known that John Howard much argued about the "CHILDREN OVERBOARD" that

no one told him, even so the rest of Australia basically knew already from the media report thatthe photos had been admitted to have been doctored, it then has to be questioned if such a lame20duck excuse can be used to excuse a person who is on record that he check the newspapers, etc,in the morning as first thing.Also, could it be accepted that a person who takes on a position as Prime Minister somehow cansqueal himself out of responsibilities by claiming not to have known, not to have been told, etc,such as in the AWB sandal or that such lame duck excuses simply borders to the absurd and25should not be held acceptable. Indeed, could it be held that this is the standard of accountabilitythe Courts could adopt when it has alleged offenders before it that the accused then can claim noone told him, etc?No less then a ROYAL COMMISSION ought to do to investigate all these matters because

after all, if this is ignored then one day we may have another person like John Howard, under30whatever name he may go, and then we can end having a reply that the Commonwealth ofAustralia itself ends up being invaded and the harm coming from this..Far to much of a nonsense is going on that really few if anyone may know what laws are reallyconstitutionally valid and we need therefore for this also a ROYAL COMMISSION, to attend35to those issues. For example there is legislation on foot dealing with both Houses of Parliamentto vote for approval of an armed conflict, but constitutionally this is not relevant as the Framersof the Constitution made clear that only the Governor-General could declare war or peace. Theyalso made clear that one could not act unless the proclamation first was published in the Gazette.It therefore is relevant to establish under what constitutional authority, if any, did John Howard40

authorise the armed invasion into Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Did the Governor-General refuse topublish such a DECLARATION OF WAR that was needed? Did John Howard at all seek suchDECLARATION OF WAR?Because I did provide numerous correspondence to Members of Federal Parliament or pretendedMembers of Federal Parliament this too ought to be considered if as such John Howard knew or45should have known better. It is not the issue that he had to rely upon my writings but that at leasthe was provided with information reasonably could be considered to be of such importance to bechecked. And while John Howard and other then members of the coalition may have cleared outtheir offices and in the process destroyed some or all of correspondence, as copies werepublished considerably in my books the content of those correspondence therefore can be50retrieved for any investigation.


3/50




.Likewise, the issue is was John Howard indeed a Prime Minister at the time that he authorisedthe armed invasion in too Iraq, where already then the validity of all writs were challenged by meand on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld both appeals on all constitutional andother legal grounds UNCHALLENGED by the Australian Electoral Commission, the5Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and all Attorney-General despite of the 2002filed Section 78B Judiciary Act (Cth) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.Indeed is Australia constitutionally still at war where the Governor-General did not publish in theGazette any DECLARATION OF WAR?Was it unlawful for the Federal Government to allow the execution of the Late President10Saddam Hussein, where Australia has abolished the death penalty and still remained a militaryoccupier of Iraq?What is the constitutional position of a Prime Minister, where albeit the Framers of theConstitution intended there would be a Prime Minister he is not as such specifically mentioned inthe Constitution? Is it therefore correct that the Prime Minister has the function to establish a15"Cabinet" of fellow Members of Parliament and/or persons who can act as Ministers for up to 3months without being a Member of Federal Parliament for the purpose to assist the Governor-General being the "ADMINISTRATOR" of the Commonwealth of Australia (for the Crown) as

his advisers and Ministers are appointed to be responsible Ministers for the Department undertheir authority.20Was the conduct of the Prime Minister to keep "refugees" on an unseaworthy boat atASHMORE REEF within his constitutional powers or was it no less then a scandalous barbaricunconstitutional/unlawful conduct that denied those people ofDUE PROCESS OF LAW?Considering also the provisions of State and Commonwealth regarding unseaworthy boats andthe Titanic Board of Inquiry recommendations!25.What then is DUE PROCESS OF LAW, when people fleeing the very nations Australians areinvolved in bombing back to the stone age are detained in concentration type CommonwealthDetention Centres, and the process is so unconstitutionally/unlawful that hundreds of law-abiding

persons are in the process also kidnapped of their streets, their workplace and/or their homes and30detained and/or deported!.The time has come to have a comprehensive ROYAL COMMISSION into these and relatedissues so that never again such a tyranny is used over anyone.Indeed, it also has to deal with the purported ASIO anti terrorism legislation if they are in fact35constitutionally permissible. This, as in my view most are not at all..Likewise, it should be investigated, as I have all along alleged, that it is unconstitutional for theCommonwealth of Australia to provide any specific person with tax free income, such as PeterReith, former Minister of Defence, as this is prohibited by the constitution. The commonwealth40

as an employer has no more right then any State government employer and cannot for itself toexclude its mates and others from taxation liability as the framers of the Constitution made clearthat only progressive tax threshold applicable to all Australians can be applied.As such, what appears to me a form of bribery, to give a former Minister a tax free cosy job ofabout $250.000 as reported- might be a way to silence the Former Minister from telling the45truth after having left the service of the Crown.Indeed, likewise it should be investigated if the Ministers are in fact unconstitutionally and sofraudulently robbing the Consolidated Revenue Funds with salaries which the Constitutionprovides for can only be paid by the British Crown! Further, if there is any scope to pay formerGovernor-Generals and former Prime Ministers with special provisions such as an office, etc50where they are no longer employed by the Crown at cost of Australian taxpayers?


4/50




.This is all interrelated because the what I view corruption and DICTATORSHIP is a massiveconduct that intertwines to the extend to have purported substituted the Constitution itself also asto rob the people of their constitutional rights and to replace "constitutional parliaments" with"sovereign Parliaments" and so prevent the people to exercise their constitutional rights.5.It should be a reminded that the High Court of Australia has only judicial powers for so farprovided in the Constitution and cannot exercise any judicial powers beyond this. In HCA 27 of1999 (Wakim) the High Court of Australia itself acknowledged that a federal court order that isunconstitutional has no legal force! And therefore numerous decisions by the High Court of10Australia which amounts to seeking to amend the application of constitutional provisions,including its 14-11-2006 judgment regarding the so called WorkChoices legislation, is andremains to be unconstitutional and so without legal force. We cannot have that judges placesthemselves above the constitution as it did with Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, Pochi and numerousother cases to use/misuse their legal powers to somehow amend the constitution by their15judgments. What it does underline is the need for a properly educated and certified person to beeligible to be appointed as a judge to the High Court of Australia and never again get a judgerefusing to hand down a judgment on the basis he doesnt know the constitutional issues before

the Court!.20I understand that the High Court of Australia, for example handed down its decision aboutSection 64 of the Constitution, but the truth is that a Parliamentarian secretary is not a member ofthe Federal Executive, a requirement of Section 64 of the Constitution and neither would be aMinister of State hence, for example the appointment of Maxime McKew, and others, asParliament Secretary would be an OFFICE OF PROFIT with the Commonwealth and within25Section 44 of the Constitution would disqualify Maxine McKew and other parliamentariansecretaries to be accepting any seat in the Parliament while they hold such a position.The Framers of the Constitution, regardless what the High Court of Australia stated in Sykes vCleary, made clear that OFFICE OF PROFIT related to a Commonwealth position and not to a

State OFFICE OF PROFIT as no conflict arose with holding a State OFFICE OF PROFIT.30They also made clear that the Section 44 disqualification applies only at the time of the personseeking to take up a seat or when already holding a seat to take up an OFFICE OF PROFITwith the Commonwealth but did not apply to the person holding an OFFICE OF PROFIT withthe Commonwealth during an election and thereafter up to the time the person taking up a seat inFederal Parliament or when holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. As such, being it Maxine35McKew or any other person holding a Parliamentarian Secretary position I view they would notbe able to take up their seat if they hold this position at the time that parliament has its firstsession and neither could take up this position as Parliamentarian Secretary after having acceptedtheir seat in Parliament. Maxine McKew and others, elected for a seat in the House ofRepresentatives, are not Members of Parliament unless and until they accept their seat elected for40

at the first sitting of Parliament, as is neither Kevin Rudd. Until then there are no members ofthe House of Representatives! Maxine McKew may claim victory of the seat of Bennelong butthis depends upon the AEC so declaring it and even then, as was shown by the Woods case ifthere is a disqualification applicable (not that I seek to imply that) then she will never be aMember of Parliament!45.Also must be investigated the extend of the Australian Electoral Commission and theCommonwealth Ombudsman in electoral matters, where all writs were defective in the purported2001, 2004 and 2007 federal elections but both the Australian Electoral Commission and /or theCommonwealth Ombudsman abused their powers to refuse to take appropriate action to resolve50matters when appropriate and required to be done. Considering also my 7-9-22 complaint the


5/50




Commonwealth Ombudsman refused to investigate even so he could then already have exposedhundreds of person wrongly detained!.It cannot be accepted that on the one hand I succeeded UNCHALLENGED in my 5-yearlitigation against the validity of all writs issued in 2001 and so that John Howard and others were5never validly elected and as such the appointment of John Howard as Prime minister wasmaximum for 3 months in view of the limitations set out in Section 64 of the Constitution and assuch John Howard was not a Prime Minister at all at the time he authorised the armed invasioninto Iraq..10Also needs to be investigated the conduct of the judges of the High Court of Australia tofraternize with the first Defendant the Governor-General when I had litigation before the VeryHigh Court of Australia and its overall conduct to refuse to hear and determine on its merits theapplications for Mandamus/Prohibition, such as the third time on the very day the armedinvasion took place on 19 March 2003, and if those orders therefore were constitutionally valid15and or enforceable, and what position and/or involvement did the judges have, including also thejudges of the Federal Court of Australia, considering also what was recorded on transcript andfurther what was stated in the documents before the court. As such also the conduct of Mr. Peter

Hanks QC acting for the Australian Electoral Commission and others- to pervert the course ofjustice to make false and misleading/deceptive statements and/or to conceal relevant material and20to substitute words in quotation of authority etc, as to ensure that my applications were wronglydefeated..Australians have a right to know their true identity and not have it covered up by innuendos andother false and misleading claims by parliamentarians and judges for some NEW WORLD25ORDER or other kind of concept. Indeed, the judges training and competence to deal withconstitutional issues also should be attended to as when a judge reportedly refuses to hand downa judgment on the basis not to know the constitutional issues in the case before the Court thenone may realise there is no proper standard to ensure competent judges are appointed to the High

Court of Australia. Currently, in certain instances Australians are unconstitutionally robbed of30their right to travel abroad by the denial of a passport. The issue is what passport are they entitledupon and has the Commonwealth any power to in fact unconstitutionally deny any Australian oftheir liberty to travel abroad? Indeed, are Australians as Barton on 2-3-1898 "subjects of theBritish Crown" and as such all the nonsense of "non-citizenship" being used to detain/deportpeople is unconstitutional and an abuse of power? After all since federation no referendum was35held , let alone approved to amend the constitution to rob Australians of their constitutional rightand position to be "Subjects of the British Crown".If therefore as the Framers of the Constitution made clear (2-3-1898) the Commonwealth ofAustralia has no constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship, then on what constitutionalbasis can the Commonwealth then detain any person as being "non-citizen" in those40

unconstitutional concentration camp styled Commonwealth Detention Centres and/orunconstitutional Pacific Island solution centres? Because of the extend to which all issues go andthe fast amount of material on record as have been published by me already I view that aROYAL COMMISSION must be given comprehensive powers to investigate these and relatedmatters as failing to do so may very well result that one day some other country may decide to do45a John Howard "pre-emptive strike" and invade the Commonwealth of Australia and bomb us tothe stone age, wrecking our infrastructure, etc, if not for our oil, or uranium, coal, etc, thenbecause they too dont like the leader of the Commonwealth of Australia..We either have a Constitution or we dont, and it is long past the time to pretend one thing and50use another.


6/50




For many years now I have campaigned for the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN,a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the courtsas to constitutional powers and limitations. Indeed, had this been created years ago we may havebeen able to avoid many problems. It is totally absurd that the interpretation of what isconstitutionally permissible, such as passing a Bill in the Parliament, is left to parliamentarians5who may themselves have never even read the Constitution, without having some reliable adviseas to if the Bill (proposed legislation) is constitutionally permissible or not. Within theconstitutional framework existing the OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN could be created withoutupsetting the separation of powers, but we may avoid ever again having a judge claiming not toknow the constitutional issues before the Court in a case, this because the OFFICE OF THE10GUARDIAN could presents its views regarding constitutional issues and so the judges can usethat as some source of information and so the parties before the court regardless if all or any isaccepted. Likewise so with parliamentarians. The OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN as suchwould not provide some political bias view but would be independent of any political views..15The purported ASIO powers for Australians to be detained and held in custody without DUEPROCESS OF LAW and a "JUDICIAL DETERMINATION" in itself should horrify anyonethat such draconic kind of legislation ever was allowed to be passed through both Houses of

Parliament, which are unconstitutional and so without legal force..20How absurd that some UNITED NATIONS could possible ove rride constitutional limitations!The United Nations has no constitutional authority and therefore has no power to overrideconstitutional limitations. The people may like to accept some of its decision but are not andcannot be bound to do so..25Bit by bit Members of Parliament in their ever ongoing quest to gain more power and to rob thepeople of their constitutional powers have done everything possible, including purportedlysubstituting the Constitution, and by this the ultimate DICTATORSHIP such as that by JohnHoward eventuated. This must be stopped and those involved held accountable, before some

other nation may just take a "PRE-EMPTIVE STIKE" against the Commonwealth of Australia30and teaches us what it is to be at the receivers end..The time is now to attend to these issues as a matter of extreme urgency as to ignore it is to leaveit up to anyone to take instead the appropriate action against those who abused/misusedconstitutional powers and those who by their silence or otherwise failed to act appropriately.35.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I will come to that in a moment, if my learned friend will excuseme; I cannot deal with two things at one time. I am dealing now with a broad generalprinciple in the way in which I wish to see it carried out, treating it as a fundamental40

principle which might well be inserted in the Constitution, that when we are handing overthe right to take our railways, and the sole power to impose and collect customs duties,we at least might say to this new body we are creating: The humblest subject shall haveas much remedy against you as if you were a subject instead of a representative of theQueen. That is a right and just thing, and it is being affirmed more strongly, year by year,45in every British-speaking community. We have not advanced so far in South Australia asthey have in New South Wales, but the march is strong and sure, and the time is not fardistant when the petition of right and all these special provisions will be done away with,and the same remedy will be given to the subject against the Crown as the subject isliable to himself. I think we might, on the attempt to found this great50Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond the substance of the legislation,


7/50




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..5Again;

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..10I may state that on 19 March 2003, the day of the very invasion by Australian troops into thesovereign nation Iraq, the High Court of Australia for the third time refused to allow myapplications for writs of prohibition/mandamus against the deployment of Australian troops intothe sovereign Iraq to proceed and be heard upon its merits, even so the application had beenamended as per directions of the Deputy Registrar of the High court of Australia at Melbourne.15However, in a 5-year litigation battle for "FAILING TO VOTE" between the CommonwealthDirector of Public Prosecutions (for the Australian Electoral Commission) many of theconstitutional issues raised in the applications before the High Court of Australia were also

before the County Court of Victoria and so UNCHALLENGED by the Commonwealth Directorof Public Prosecutions, the Australian Electoral Commission and any of the Attorney-Generals20even so they all had been served in 2002 with a Section 78B Judiciary Act (Cth) NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS..Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown25in prosecuting criminals are.[start page 1685]

Mr. GORDON.-Even that embraces a very large body of rights, and the principle is the same. We have torely in many of our relations on the probity of the Attorney-General, on the probity of the Parliament, or, to

go further down, on the probity of the community. Upon all these grounds I contend that the amendment is30

one that ought to be passed. It leaves the whole executive power open to attack. Once a law is passedanybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial poweronce the question of ultra vires is raised. Under the clause, as I have amended it, it will not prevent the

plea ofultra vires being raised where it is accompanied with the plea of a conflict of law. If there is a statelaw and a Commonwealth law on the same subject, every citizen is entitled to know which be should obey.35If he joins a plea ofultra vires with a plea of conflict of law, that ought to be heard.

As such, whereas the High Court of Australia refused to hear and determine the matters upontheir merits, as set out in the about 800 pages supportive affidavit material, the County Court ofVictoria provided with this and further material, including my 6-7-2006 published book;.40

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

ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3.This book also contained all relevant documents that were before the Court. Which book was45filed as "evidence" in support of my case!.Much is argued about the United Nations and that it authorised the invasion into the sovereignnation Afghanistan albeit it did not authorise the armed invasion into Iraq, as my correspondenceof the past and this correspondence will make clear it is irrelevant if the United Nations did or50didnt authorise any invasion as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that no treaty couldoverride constitutional limitations..


8/50




Constitutionally, if there is a actual attack (not some perceived attack) then the Minister ofDefence, and no other person, is authorised to use Australian troops immediately against anyenemy troops for the defence of Australian soil. However, the Framers of the Constitution alsomade it clear that to declare war or peace is a prerogative power only the Governor-General canexercise. The Governor-General (not Governor-General in Council) by Section 68 is Commander5in Chief of the armed forces. This, so the Governor-General is not bound to act upon the adviseof the Minister for Defence, if the minister were to pursue a declaration of war and the Governor-General held that this was not advisable and against the general publics interest.As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, the Minister of Defence could not act unless theGovernor-General first had published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR.10.Much is argued that at the time former Prime Minister Bob Hawke did allow troops to go into thefirst Gulf War and so by "convention" this is permitted, but if we are going to rely uponwhatever "convention" anyone desires to make then why at all have a Constitution?.15Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the educationquestion-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 as20a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of theConstitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should wehave 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 ofthe several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a25referendum? 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..

What is made clear is that no one is above the law, as otherwise we might as well leave all30powers by a Minister to do as he likes..Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I wish to say a few words on this subject. At the outset I would saythat I am not very particular whether this matter is dealt with by such a clause as drafted by the Drafting35Committee or whether it is dealt with by a clause giving the Parliament power to deal with the subject. I canwithout much difficulty meet my honorable friend (Mr. Symon), but I do hold a strong opinion that it

would be necessary to provide for this matter in the Constitution in the manner we have provided for it inthis draft or else to take the power for Parliament to make laws upon the subject . The question has been

asked whether the Parliament cannot make laws affecting the prerogative. The answer is-"Yes" and40"No." The Parliament can make laws affecting the prerogative in respect of any matter in which it

has express power of legislation or a power necessarily implied. It cannot make laws affecting theprerogative in matters with respect to which it has no power to make laws.

Mr. FRASER.-Can it not get authority?

.45Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. SYMON .-It is not a law which is ultra vires.Mr. GORDON.-The honorable member will see that I am not declaring that any law which is ultra vires is

not ultra vires. I am simply limiting the area of attack.Mr. SYMON .-The man who is ruined by it is not to take that point.50Mr. GORDON.-We must postulate of all our Parliaments that they will not pass laws which are

ethically indefensible.

.


9/50




Because there is a gross abuse of power where Members of Parliament, who may know littlemore but being a sport star are entrusted in voting upon legislation they haven' got a clue what isconstitutionally permissible, it generally is that the leader of the party dictates how they shallvote. As such those who are to represent their constituents really are voting along party linesdictated by their leaders.5A danger is that leaders of political parties are more and more involving religion as to try to snarevotes, including those of "Exclusive Brethern" who albeit allegedly do not vote were spendinghuge amount of monies as I understand it to be seeking to influence others how to vote.QUOTE Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian

Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian10* Gary, what is your view about this Judeo-Christian thing?**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI , I am not some converted Jew, I have real Jewish blood flowing through my veins,

inherited from my ancestors but would like every one TO SHUT UP about religion and accept the wisdom of theFramers of the Constitution that they didnt want this POLITICAL UNION, the Commonwealth of Australia to be

torn with religious hatred.15Being it Muslims, atheist or whatever their social and other values are as much important to us in Australia then that

of Jews, Christians, etc. We do not, and this is what the Framers of the Constitution warned about, have thisCommonwealth of Australia decent into some religious civil war. There is absolutely no validity in seeking to argue

that somehow Christian values are overriding, as many non-Christians have contributed to this development of thiscontinent and none were rejected because of their values may have been non-Christian.20

Lets make it clear, the value of a person is not and never should be measured in his/her religious or non-religiouslifestyle but rather in what the person stood for as a human being. As I have already previously extensively

canvassed this issue I do not propose to repeat all the same again. Just that I will highlight some matters.Why should a murdered who happen to have a religion that god forgive sins be better then a non-religious

person who does not commit such a crime?25http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21752187-2,00.html

TraditionImmigration minister Kevin Andrews said the test would force potential citizens to know about Australias

political system, Aboriginal history and that the nations values were based on Judeo-Christian tradition.30

"It's the sort of thing you would expect someone who goes through school in Australia would know at the

end of secondary school, and probably in some instances at the end of primary school," Mr Andrews toldthe Herald Sun.

One of the questions is likely to be: "Which city is the capital of Australia: Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra or35Hobart?"

Another is: "Which animals are on the coat of arms?" Among the possible answers is: "Lion and unicorn".

The test will be based on a new resource book, The Australian Way of Life, being drawn up by the40Immigration Department.

The US Courts have extensive ruling on matters such as the one quoted below and the Framers of the Constitution

themselves also explained matters.

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any45religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for

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

Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization50Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemptionletter and support materials provided in the following link:

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting DocumentationRefer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized55or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a

religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.

And


10/50




Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law.

You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you tosubmit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple;

do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.And5

Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the

law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. Theyare betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.

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

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,10Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970

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

being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used thewords "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to15formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is

contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose

conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are20based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those

whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.

4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy ofexempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, shouldextend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage.25Pp. 361-367.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Mr. HIGGINS.-I know that a great many people have been got to sign petitions in favour of inserting such religious words

in the preamble of this Bill by men who know the course of the struggle in the United States, but who have30not told the people what the course of that struggle is, and what the motive for these words is. I think the

people of Australia ought to have been told frankly when they were asked to sign these petitions what thehistory in the United States has been on the subject, and the motive with which these words have been

proposed. I think the people in Australia are as reverential as any people on the face of this earth, so I willmake no opposition to the insertion of seemly and suitable words, provided that it is made perfectly clear in35

the substantive part of the Constitution that we are not conferring on the Commonwealth a power to passreligious laws. I want to leave that as a reserved power to the state, as it is now. Let the states have the

power. I will not interfere with the individual states in the power they have, but I want to make itclear that in inserting these religious words in the preamble of the Bill we are not by inference giving

a power to impose on the Federation of Australia any religious laws.40And

Mr. HIGGINS.-No; I think the honorable member will see that a recital in the preamble to theConstitution is a very different thing from an oath which may be taken in a court of justice or

anywhere else.Mr. DOUGLAS.-You will find that you can make an affirmation without referring to Almighty God.45Any person can make an affirmation who has no belief in Almighty God.The CHAIRMAN .-I do not think the honorable member is in order in making a speech.

Mr. HIGGINS.-I thank the honorable member for being disorderly under the circumstances. I think

there is a good deal of force in what he says, but I also see this, that the taking of an oath in a court ofjustice or on taking office is quite a different thing from having in a well thought-out preamble to a50Constitution any reference to religious belief.

END QUOTE Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian.Many argue that because Queen Elizabeth II is head of a Church then therefore it applies also tothe Commonwealth of Australia, albeit the Queen is the monarch of the United Kingdom and not55Monarch over Australia in that regard but the Commonwealth of Australia rather is a"POLITICAL UNION" existing of r nations known as States within the Commonwealth ofAustralia which were and remained to be "dominions".As shown below in transcript of April 1897 the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the

Queens standing in the Church of England is not relevant as such to the Commonwealth of60


11/50




Australia, which was created as a "POLITICAL UNION" to specifically outlaw any religion tobe used one way or another by the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit the States retained theircolonial powers to legislate as to religion..And as shown below in the quotations of "Chapter 007A The Great Deception" and "Chapter5000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED" the High Court of Australia adds it fairshare of problem to this that make an utter mess of it all BY SOME OF ITS UTTER ANDSHEER NONSENSE IT STATES;

QUOTE Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLEDChapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED10

* Gary, what is your view about McHughs statement ?**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, how can anyone put the Court in disrepute when you have such idiotic statement

of a judge. Well, I have put my bit on the Internet about it.In my view considering that statement the parliament should have moved to have him removed from the bench as

soon as he made that statement.15If this is the kind of mentality and intelligence that we can expect from judges of the High Courtof Australia then I think we might as well appoint one of my grandchildren to the bench and atleast they be rather playing with toys and crayons and say nothing sensible then the utter rubbishthat we now had. And this kind of intelligence, or the lack thereof, is used to deal with

constitutional matters, no wonder wee are going downhill!20index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635

QUOTE 070520 postingI am very disturbed to find the following of a quotation to have found this discussion;

QUOTE25McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta

and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.END QUOTE

QUOTE30But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it issaid, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.

END QUOTE

As a "constitutionalist" (not some lawyer who is brainwashed) I condemn any one, in particularly judges, to35undermine the constitutional system that exist in the POLITICAL UNION BEING THE Commonwealth ofAustralia.

The Commonwealth of Australia, as like the European Union, is created by Statue and itself has nocommon law. Hence, any jury that were to be involved in federal hearings must be drawn from a State.40

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

constitutional issues I raised!45

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was an act to create a "APOLITICAL

UNION" and the States who partly federated retaining all legislative powers regarding "CIVIL RIGHTS"as it was their constitutions that were based upon the provisions of the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Habeas

corpus, etc.50

In the Commonwealth of Australia, judges are appointed to the High Court of Australia regardless lacking


12/50




any competence in constitutional matters, in fact they may never have practiced in constitutional matters,

and in one incident a judge actually refused to hand down a judgment other then to state he didn't have anyknowledge in the constitutional matter before the court and for this would abstain from handing down a

judgment.5

You find it as a matter of record that where the Governor-General was Defendant in a case before the HighCourt of Australia then all 7 judges subsequently fraternised with the governor-General, and no one has to

be surprised the Court subsequently refused to allow the case to be heard upon its MERITS.

In the Commonwealth of Australia judges are purportedly appointed by the Governor-General but he10 merely appoints those who the Government provides to be appointed. Hence a political stacking occurs.

The High Court of Australia in 1996 using their powers as a "persona designata" to make decisions for theparliament, approved of the entire constitution to be replaced by the Australia act 1986 (forget about it

being constitutionally valid) so that there no longer is a "constitutional Parliament" but the parliament now15is above the constitution. As it now legislated the (purported) constitution.

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

Having myself served in the NATO at the then IRON CURAIN having been trained as a sharpshooter, I20personally deplore the usage of weapons, as I am trained to use it to kill. However, I recognise the right of

others to bear arms, for defending their rights, and even the Framers of the Constitution (Australia)

indicated that militia could be drawn from civilians of a State after the federation was created. This to meimplied that the commonwealth of Australia would have been able to enlist armed civilians to serve at that

time to protect the shores of the Commonwealth of Australia until it could set up its own defence force.25

There are always terrible incidents involving firearms that stand out. Likewise there are also terrible

incidents where motor vehicles are standing out in having resulted to mass killings.

Personally, I would prefer not a single person to have a firearm, but then I have to recognise that others30may desire that everyone should have a weapon to defend himself/herself.

My wife, opposed me to even fit a knife sharpers on the kitchen wall, but wanted me to hide it in a pantry,

as she fears that someone might come in the residence and see the knives and use it wrongly.35

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

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

Hence regulations as to the storage, handling and usage of a firearm should be deemed to be appropriate40where it provides for what is locally required.

Therefore, while a person may have the right to own a firearm, the Parliament rightfully could legislate to

have the usage, carrying, etc made subject to conditions.45

Where there is a constitutional right, implied or otherwise, that a person may bear arms to defend himselfthen I view one cannot limit the usage of a weapon to be some small handgun, a tank, or a warplane, as

depending what your personal conditions are you may need one or another, without having any intention touse it against other civilians.

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

I for one do not desire to use a weapon, do not like them being used, but that are my personal views, and I55recognise others have total opposite views. They have their right on their opinion as much as I have and assuch I view that the concentration should not be as to how to make inroads to the rights of others, but rather

how can we facilitate the rights of others without that our own rights (including that of personal safety, asnot to be held up by some crazy gunman) jeopardised needlessly.

60In particular those of the law enforcement who are risking their lives daily to protect innocent citizens of

harm they must not unduly be jeopardised in their law enforcement positions because inappropriate

regulations allow anyone to obtain a weapon.


13/50




While many people argue about the right of freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, few do actuallyconcentrate on the issue of right of freedom of travel, even so this likewise was protected by old English

law.5

Not to many people argue that their right to travel is denied where they must first have a driving licence todrive a motor vehicle, where as no kind of driving licence existed to drive a cart-and-wagon. As such,somehow we have accepted inroads to our guaranteed freedoms because society allowed for this where as

in regard of weapons we may have different positions pending the local society we reside in.

10 In my view, the right to legislate that a person should not be allowed to bear arms cannot be justified on acourt decision, as if the freedom to bear arms is guaranteed then I view not a court in the land could

possible make an order contrary to it.

We therefore may have to look at the constitutional framework as to what was existing at the time each15constitution was created and if the conditions then existed that a Court could actually have denied a person

to bear arms. If in history it can be shown that certain persons were denied by the local authorities to beararms, then it must be accepted that the Constitution albeit if it provides for the right to bear arms then was

created upon the understanding that such implied freedom was at all times deemed to be subject to courtjudicial decisions and or legislative powers.20

As a "constitutionalist" I find it laughable how judges, despite their extensive legal training, can come up

with such utter and sheer nonsense such as McHugh J did with his statement ;

QUOTE25

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said,

some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to.END QUOTE

30As no such constitutional system operates that would allow the parliament to enact such laws.

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

QUOTE35McHUGH J: I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta

and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not.END QUOTE

Lawyers are being trained in legal studies by other lawyers and as such are brainwashed far to often that40some LEGAL FICTION is FLEGAL REALITY>

As I exposed in my book published on 30 September 2003

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP45

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN 0-9580569-6-X (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

50 There is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare "citizenship" asAustralians are constitutionally "subjects of the British Crown". Citizenship is a " POLITICAL

POSITION" of rights, including franchise, and has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" yet the High

Court of Australia goes on as if it is a nationality.55

In court, on 19 July 2006, I defeated the Federal Government lawyers also on this matter.

Hence, having has a legal study and having obtained law degrees in itself will not prove you are not

brainwashed by LEGAL FICTION but more then likely you are.60

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

Only when we are dealing with LEGAL REALITY and have appropriately explored the constitutional


14/50




basis upon which constitutional rights, implied or otherwise, were provided for in the constitution can we

commence to address the issues such as the right to bear arms, etc.

And to make clear, no Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any legislative powers to allowthe killing of blue-eyed babies or for such kind of nonsense, as none of the State constitutions could allow5for such legislative nonsense as they are all bound to make laws for "the peace, order, and goodgovernment", even so judges likewise fails to recognise this constitutional limitation.

As the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear the Constitution was the "new Magna Carta".

END QUOTE 070520 posting10 The danger is that if some fanatical religion were to come to power in Australia it could in fact rely upon these andother stupid and irresponsible statements of the High Court of Australia and turn this Commonwealth of Australiainto some murderous regime, to pursue " ethnic cleansing" and fund their religious schools at taxpayers expenses.Whatever may suit to today for the so-called Judeo-Christians may tomorrow suit a other fanatical religion to

achieve precisely the opposite! This is what we should keep in mind, and why the Framers of the Constitution so15much sought to prevent this kind of religious war to exist in the Commonwealth of Australia.

END QUOTE Chapter 000D HAVE EVERY BLUE-EYED BABY KILLED.QUOTE Chapter 007A The Great Deception

Chapter 007A The Great Deception20* Gary, "The Great Deception" by whom?

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, just read the Chapter 034T of the book (published on 17-3-2007);

INSPECTOR-RIKATI on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTSFor the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.25ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6 was ISBN 0-9751760-4-3

QUOTE Chapter 034TGary, The Great Deception?INSPECTOR-RIKATI, this document also sets out how the judges of the High Court of Australia are deceiving

us as to the application of the Constitution! It is to be read in conjunction with other documents such as "Is our30Constitution safe", "The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE", etc.

Anyhow, I quote below the document "The Great Deception";

The Great DeceptionQUOTE

I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally from35the legal principles that are embedded in the Constitution.

END QUOTE

In my 2-8-2003 correspondence, published previously in my book (30 September 2003);INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIPA book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.40ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

I included the following, in regard of the issue of the detention of David Hicks;QUOTE

http://store.yahoo.com/4crests/magnacarta.htmlWhen representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned45

to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. Theconceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law

of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequentEnglish laws.

50This heritage is most clearly apparent in our Bill of Rights. The fifth amendment guarantees

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and the sixth states

. . . the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. Written 575 years55earlier, Magna Carta declares

No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, . . . or in any other way destroyed . . . except by the lawful

judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right


15/50




or justice. In 1957 the American Bar Association acknowledged the debt American law and

constitutionalism had to Magna Carta and English common law by erecting a monument at Runnymede.Yet, as close as Magna Carta and American concepts of liberty are, they remain distinct. Magna Carta is a

charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is theestablishment of a government by and for "We the People."5

Magna Carta(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or

exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or sendothers to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.10 (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of therealm and are minded to keep it well.(49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for

peace or for loyal service.(51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen,15their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it , to its harm, with horses and arms.(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our

kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that theyshall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the

following security:20It is clear that the above stated applies " forever".

END QUOTE

Since then the US Supreme Court handed down its decision that the Magna Charta does apply to the USConstitution.Lets now consider what the High Court of Australia stated in;25Transcript of High Court AppealEssenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAEssenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)

McHUGH J: But is not the problem you face that the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688 are30not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way the Constitution is binding on those

legislatures? Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution is entitled tolegislate in total disregard of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, as is the United Kingdom Parliament.

Take the situation in Northern Ireland. They abolished trial by jury in Northern Ireland. If you go back toMagna Carta which, I suppose, is really the heart of your argument, it is really more a statement of political35

ideals. They are not constitutional documents in the sense that the Australian Constitution and the UnitedStates Constitution are.

Well, the US Supreme Court has (since the publication of my book on 30-9-2003) clearly ruledthat the Magna Charta is applicable to the US constitution.Now, lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated during the Constitution Convention40Debates;HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

Mr. OCONNOR .-The amendment will insure proper administration of the laws, and afford their protectionto every citizen.45Mr. SYMON .-That is insured already.Mr. OCONNOR .-In what way?

Mr. SYMON .-Under the various state Constitutions.Mr. OCONNOR .-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these

Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these50Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without dueprocess of law . Because if this provision in the Constitution is carried it will not be in the power of anystate to pass a law to amend its Constitution to do that. It is a declaration of liberty and freedom in our

dealing with citizens of the Commonwealth. Not only can there be no harm in placing it in the

Constitution, but it is also necessary for the protection of the liberty of everybody who lives within55the limits of any State.Mr. SYMON .-Have we not that under-Magna Charta.

Mr. OCONNOR .-There is nothing that would prevent a repeal of Magna Charta by any state if it

chose to do so. Let us suppose that there were any particular class of offences, or particular class ofpersons who, at any time, happened to be the subjects of some wild impulse on the part of a majority60

of the community, and unjust laws were passed-


16/50




Mr. SYMON .-Has anything ever happened that would Justify such a proposition?

Mr. OCONNOR .-Yes, they are matters of history in these colonies which it is not necessary to refer to.Mr. SYMON .-Would it not require an amendment of the Constitution to repeal Magna Charta?

Mr. OCONNOR .-What Constitution?Mr. SYMON .-This Constitution. Do you think Magna Charta would be repealed by an Act of the5Federal Parliament?Mr. OCONNOR .-I do not think so, and I did not say so. But I say that, under the Constitution of the

states, as we are dealing with the Constitution, a State might enact any laws which it thought fit, andeven if those laws amounted to a repeal of Magna Charta they could be carried. I admit we are only

dealing with a possibility, but at the same time it is a possibility which if it eventuated, as it might,10would be very disastrous, and there is no reason why we should not prevent it.[start page 684]Mr. FRASER.-We might provide a safe-guard, at any rate.

HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)15

Mr. GLYNN.-I am now speaking of the English law. It has been somewhat modified in the StraitsSettlements, and in one or two other parts of the empire, I believe, by giving a right of action for tort in

certain cases, but I do not think that this extended right of action has ever been given in any of the colonies.Conditions justifying actions for damages against the Crown, however, are almost as frequent as actions for

breach of contract. In Canada a man sued the Crown for damages received in connexion with a railway20accident, but he was debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect

in the railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen in the

case I have already mentioned, that-Where the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown,and the purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be obtained, compensation in25money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods supplied to the Crown or to the publicservice-the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is

provided by Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rightsof action are given to the subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim

against another subject.30HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)Mr. DEAKIN.-

. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten ,And35

Mr. DEAKIN.-What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the

liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter ofliberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-ofpeace, order, and good

government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.40Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into

any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged inframing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in

this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty;we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can45conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this

question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter waswrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people

of Australia to themselves.Again;50

the Crown is bound to refer a petition of right to the courts for decision, because it is provided by

Magna Charta that justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed.

Therefore it must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that the Magna Chartaapplied to the Constitution and it is not for the judges to then seek to amend the Constitution bytheir own judgment to deny this to be applicable.55As much as the Magna Charta is applicable likewise so the Bill of Rights .There is however another disturbing element to what the judges stated;

Essenberg v The Queen B55/1999 (22 June 2000)IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUMMOW J: Now these words, "for peace, order and good government" are words of expansion, not60

contraction, you see - they are not words of limitation.


17/50




McHUGH J: They do not limit the powers. In fact they arguably have no legal effect whatever, and that is

the doctrine of this Court. We do not make a decision as to whether the law is for the peace, for the order,for the good government . It is assumed that if Parliament makes it, it is, and the real question is, is it a law

with the same respect to trade and commerce in other countries or whatever the relevant law of Parliamentrelies on, but this Court has never attempted to say that a law, on the subject of trade and commerce, for5example, is not "for peace, order and good government". It is, in effect, a parliamentary expression ratherthan a legal expression. It does not limit Parliament's power; it is said to expand them.

MR ESSENBERG: I am not really sure I understand that.

Now lets see what the Framers of the Constitution stated, as set out more extensive in the

document "for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc" in Chapter 034O10HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I agree that these words appear rather startling. [start page 559] They are takenfrom the Federal Council Act of Australasia, and were inserted by the imperial authorities after

consideration and in substitution for more limited words that were proposed by the Convention that met15here in 1883. Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the federal parliament are only

to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, it was thought perfectlysafe to adopt them.

Mr. BAKER: Do I understand that if a ship leaves one of the Australian colonies for a British port,

say London, having a British register, until she actually arrives in Great Britain, the laws of the20commonwealth are binding upon her, and not the laws of Great Britain?

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: No; but laws of the commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order,and good government of the commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was

necessary to send a prisoner to England, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of thecommonwealth outside the 3-mile limit could possibly apply.25

And

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.HANSARD 14-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the NationalAustralasian Convention)30

Mr. BARTON:That was the Convention which had, I think, to be called in consequence of the New Guinea affair. Sir

Samuel went on:Finding those words there, and considering that the powers of the Federal Parliament are only to make

laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, it was thought perfectly safe to35adopt them.

Sir Samuel Griffith's reply to that interjection was;No; but laws of the Commonwealth, limited to laws for the peace, order, and good government of the

Commonwealth, will apply to her on her voyage. For instance, if it was necessary to send a prisoner toEngland, only such provisions as are essential for the laws of the Commonwealth outside the three-mile40limit could possibly apply.That is to say, that the laws of the Commonwealth in respect of the matter cannot possibly affect any law of

the Imperial Parliament with which they may be in conflict, but so far as they are not in conflict they willbe applicable to a ship on her voyage for the preservation of those laws of the Commonwealth which it is

necessary to have enforced.45HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)Amendment suggested by the House of Assembly of Tasmania:

Omit the words "for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, lines 3, 4, and 5."The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]: This is an amendment which was made in the50legislature of Tasmania at the instance of the Hon. A.I. Clark. That gentleman has furnished these reasonsfor the amendment, and, perhaps, in justice to him, I ought to read them:

These words are copied from the several acts of the Imperial Parliament providing for the establishment oflegislatures in the various Australian colonies, and are perfectly appropriate when used in reference to the

establishment of the legislature which is to possess plenary legislative powers, and have unlimited55jurisdiction on all questions relating to the protection of life and property, and the enforcement of

contractual rights of every kind; but it is very doubtful if they ought to find a place in connection with thedefinition and delegation of limited legislative powers which do not include matters relating to the daily

protection of life and property, or to enforcement of private rights and obligations in general. It is true thatthey find a place in the 91st section of the British North America Act, which establishes a federal60

convention for Canada; but the primary object of that act is to limit the powers and jurisdiction of the


18/50




provincial legislatures, and to vest the residuum of legislative authority in the Dominion of Canada in the

federal parliament. The words in question may, therefore, fitly find a place in that act, and they were reliedupon in the case of "The Attorney-General of Canada versus the Attorney-General of Ontario, which was

decided by the Privy Council last year[L.R.A.C. 1896] to uphold the act of the Dominion Parliament, whichhad been challenged on the ground that it had encroached upon the domain of the provincial legislatures.5That decision, in its effect, appears to me to be, an argument against the insertion of the words in questionin connection with the definition and delegation of the legislative powers of the parliament of the

commonwealth, because they might, in some unforeseen and unexpected controversy, afford ground for anargument in favour of the jurisdiction of the parliament of the commonwealth in matters which the several

states might claim to be wholly within their own legislative powers. It cannot be contended that they are10 required for the purpose of giving the parliament of the commonwealth full power to legislate with regardto all the subjects mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52; and, if they are not required for that purpose,they must inevitably encourage the contention that they are inserted [start page 1037] for some additional

purpose. But, if their insertion in not intended to add in any way to the powers of parliament, in relation tothe matters mentioned in the sub-sections of section 52, then they violate the canon of drafting, which15requires that no unnecessary words should be used in giving expression to the intention of the legislature.They are very properly inserted in section 53, because that section confers upon the parliament of the

commonwealth plenary and exclusive powers in regard to the several matters mentioned in the sub-sectionof that section. But their presence in section 52 tends to create a resemblance in the scope of the powers

conferred by the two sections, whereas it would be much more desirable to make the difference in the20purport of each section as apparent and emphatic as possible.

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

evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these wordsas they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of thecommonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any25powers beyond the ambit of those specified.The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the

Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit mightnot raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,

order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be30contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the

commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to theparliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their

legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is

sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good35

government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter fullconsideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they

had better not be left out of the bill altogether.The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting

Committee.40Amendment negatived.

Again;Surely that is sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace,

order, and good governmentHANSARD 13x-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National45Australasian Convention)

Mr. ISAACS.-The Parliament has by clause 52 full power and authority to make laws for the peace,

order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to a large number of matters that

are set out. This is a power that is without limitation.It should be understood that while it was stated50

This is a power that is without limitation.

It is within the limits of being for for the peace, order, and good government!As such as long as it is within the scope of " for the peace, order, and good government" thelegislative powers is unlimited.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National55Australasian Convention)

Mr. DEAKIN.-

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

Mr. DEAKIN.-60


19/50




What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-theliberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter ofliberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-ofpeace, order, and good

government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into5any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged inframing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in

this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty;we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can

conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this10question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter waswrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people

of Australia to themselves.

In my view judges such as Gummow J and McHugh J ought to have a retraining as to what isconstitutionally appropriate as I do not believe they have a clue what is applicable. Again, the15document "for the peace order and good government-1-Hansard.doc" has extensively set outhow it was being used, including some opposition and a submission from Tasmania to have ittaken out as there should be an unlimited power, but it was made clear, that unlimited powerwould exist within the confines of laws being for the " order, peace and good government" andin the end this was retained in the Constitution! I for one wonder how on earth judges of the20High Court of Australia do not comprehend this!I cannot find any excuse whatsoever that judges of the High Court of Australia would divert totally from the legal

principles that are embedded in the Constitution.

END QUOTE Chapter* Do you view that it is , so to say, no longer the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION?25**#** In my view it has lost the plot. We are in a really bad situation, as while Section 64 of theConstitution permits the Governor-General to appoint anyone (even not a Member of Parliament,for up to three months) to be a Minister of State the Framers of the Constitution intended thatonly Members of the House of Representatives would be permanent Ministers of State. There is aclear conflict of interest when a Senator representing State interest instead represents the30Government of the Day. And we saw this with what I consider the infamous phone call bySenator Boswell conceding to John Howard control of the Senate saying "Prime Minister youhave control of the Senate". I view no one could more be a traitor to the Constitution in thatregard as he did. By it destroying the very constitutional set up to have one House representingthe states and one representing the Commonwealth as whole. In my view, there is a conflict of35interest for any Senator to be a Minister of State. And, I view the government by this using itnumbers to deny many Members of parliament a copy of the Bill before the House to be votedupon, and also allowing them sufficient time to consider and debate the issue is no less thenTERRORISM, and the High Court of Australia despite of this having shown not to haveconsidered this in its judgment completely failed to be a true GUARDIAN OF THE40CONSTITUTION. In my view it merely RUBBERSTAMPS what the Federal Governmentdesires under the pretext of considering the matter before the Court, it became as much part of

this crime ofTERRORISM as any other criminal does where perhaps not pulling the trigger in ahold-up nevertheless is an accomplish by driving the get away car or cause the criminal to eludethe police by harbouring the criminal. In my view, we should have specialist judges who only45deal with constitutional issues in the High Court of Australia, as in my view the High Court ofAustralia simply is not up to the task to appropriately deal with constitutional issues in its currentset up. For this also the urgent need for the creation of an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, as Ifor one cannot see how the High Court of Australia otherwise will ever be competent to fulfil itstask to be a GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION, where it proved already not able to do50so!* Are you aware I asked just one question and you respond with about 7 pages answer! And itwasnt even fully about it all such as ULTRA VIRES, as I understood this Chapter was going to

be about!


20/50

p20 2-12-2007 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkCh

071202 00 request royal commission - iraq

Documents