111017-ceo & principal registrar - demand to correct - etc

8/3/2019 111017-CEO & Principal Registrar - DEMAND to Correct - Etc

1/29

Page 117-11-2011 Ref: CEO & PRICIPAL REGISTRAR DEMAD to correct - etcISPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the COSTITUTIO-DVD

A 1st

edition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISB 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE OTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details. [email protected]

Andrew Phelan Chief Executive & Principal Registrar HCA 17-11-2011

C/o [email protected]

Cc; Carolyn Rogers SEIOR [email protected]

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAILEmail: [email protected]

.10Ref: CEO & PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR DEMAND to correct - etc

Sir/Madam,there are some very serious issues canvassed in this correspondence including what I

consider to be unconstitutional payments to judges, Members of Parliament, etc.15As a self-educated COSTITUTIOALIST I gained the view from the constitution(Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that it has embedded in it a legal

principle of seperation of powers being1. The Legislators2. The Executives203. The judiciary4. Inter-State Commission

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE25

Sir JOH DOWER.-We spend time enough in discussing things here, and when every one is agreed thatthis clause is not to be adopted in the form in which it is printed, but is only to be a power of the Parliament, itis not worth while to discuss the question of whether it is [start page 1665] absolutely necessary to put in thewords. Where there is a wide difference of opinion, it would be safer to do it. I agree with Mr. Barton thatthere is no power, because sub-section (37) of clause 52 reads-30

Any matters necessary for or incidental to the carrying into execution of the foregoing powers, or of anyother powers vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or Executive Government of the Commonwealth,or in any department or officer thereof.

I venture to say that these are not necessary or incidental to the execution of any powers. The

Commonwealth will come into existence under this Constitution plus English law, one of whose35principles is that the Queen can do no wrong.That is the foundation on which the Constitution is

established.END QUOTE.

The Constitution is providing for three levels of Government being401. The British Parliament with it any legislative powers transferred to the European Union

albeit the provisions of the European Union are only applicable for so far they do notinfringe upon the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

2. The Commonwealth as Central government3. The state Government as Local government45

.


2/29


3/29


A 1st


END QUOTE.

HASARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTO.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible government5END QUOTE.


Mr. BARTO.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is10responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.

END QUOTE.


QUOTE Mr. DEAKI (Victoria).-15The 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.

HASARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates20QUOTE

Mr. BARTO.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the

Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the

provisions of this Constitution,the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by whichthose principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.25

END QUOTE.


Mr. BARTO.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an30Executive 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. END QUOTE

As to the High Court of Australia function the Framers of the Constitution expressed the35following:

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. SOLOMO.-40

We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just

interpretation of the Constitution:END QUOTE

HASARD 12-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational45Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. BARTO:

It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there

shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I

believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or50 invest with federal jurisdiction.END QUOTE.

HASARD 12-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)55QUOTE Mr. BARTO:

And then there is this proviso:

Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according

to the rules of the common law.

END QUOTE60


4/29


A 1st


Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. THYE:

I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally5immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary

legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

That opens up a matter of very large consideration for this Convention. In the first place, what is the

authority above and beyond the legislatures which is to have the power of changing the law of theconstitution, or of regulating it in any form? The answer, of course, is that it is the people of these colonies10who are to be charged with that important function; and I would, therefore, point out-and I think

several hon. members who have had considerable experience in leading what may be called democratic

parties in these colonies have forgotten for a moment-what the democracy of Australia is to be.END QUOTE.15HASARD 12-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. BARTO:

Then it is provided that trial by jury shall be held in the State where the offence has been committed.20Thai is to prevent a person being taken away from the State where the alleged offence was committed

into another, and there tried by another jury 1,000 or 1,500 miles distant, perhaps. In other words, thepower to change the venue of the trial is restricted to the limitations of the State in which the offence

has occurred; so that, if it has occurred in ew South Wales, South Australia, or Tasmania, a person

could not be taken away to be tried by the jury of another colony, but only by his peers in his own25State.

END QUOTE

Hansard 13-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)30QUOTE Mr. HIGGIS (Victoria).-

The House of Lords does not do that. If that power is exercised, as I suppose it will be, in Australia, as it is inthe United States, the danger will be still greater, because Parliament, by altering the number of Judges, and

by making stipulations as to their appointment, could so mould the character of the High Court as to get from

it a decision conformable with its own views as against the views of the state Parliament.35END QUOTE

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-40

We can only prescribe a minimum, at all events, so that there shall be a strong guarantee to theCommonwealth, when it comes into operation, that there shall be a bench of such ability as we can secure,and in which we can all place confidence in the fairness and impartiality of its decisions as to the meaning ofthis Constitution and every part of it.

END QUOTE45.

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational

Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. PEACOCK.-Quite so; but the question of a few thousand pounds ought not to be taken into50consideration. When we remember that this Federal Court will have to deal with important mattersaffecting the liberties of the people, we are all desirous of seeing a strong Federal Court established, andappeals should be decided without incurring the large expenditure which is now involved in the case ofappeals to the Privy Council. I am confident the people are desirous of not seeing this provision weakened-that they would rather see it strengthened. I therefore hope the amendment will be rejected.55

END QUOTE

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)


5/29


A 1st


QUOTE Mr. SOLOMO.-Most of us, when we were candidates for election to the Federal Convention, placed great stress upon it

as affording a means of bringing justice within easy reach of the poor man.END QUOTE

5Hansard 20-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. HIGGIS:

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 QUOTE10 .The Framers of the Constitution debated at length that the Commonwealth Legislators, referredto as the Federal Parliament, could only legislate as to UIFORM legislation throughout theCommonwealth of Australia in regard of federal matters for which it was provided withlegislative powers. The Framers of the Constitution also provided for the Federal Executives,15referred to as the Federal Government, in that it only could deal with matters upon a UIFORM

basis throughout the Commonwealth. However, the Framers of the Constitution were also acuteaware that at times legislation and the execution of powers within legislation couldnt be done ona UIFORM basis and may need to be performed upon a non-UIFORM basis such as inregard of trade & commerce as each State may have a different interest in that regard and as20such it decided to insert in the constitution s101 Inter-State Commission which then as acommission of experts, not as a political entity, could make decisions in regard of trade &commerce on a non-UIFORM basis.The quotes below relates mainly to imposition of taxation but reflects it must be uniform inregard of all legislation (hence the Inter-State commissions function), even so Members of25

parliament wrongly are excluded from this and others such as the previous Chairman of theAWB with his reported million dollar Iraq position even so not a single Member of Parliamentcan be excluded because none are on a salary with the Commonwealth as set out also below..

Hansard16-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational30Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-

In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the

Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.35END QUOTE.

Hansard19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE40

Mr. MCMILLA: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.

END QUOTE.

Hansard19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational45Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for theFederal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties inVictoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The50Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a

sliding scale great injury will be avoided.

END QUOTE

HASARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates55QUOTE Mr. GORDO.-


6/29


A 1st


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.

HASARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates5QUOTE Mr. BARTO.-

The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative

power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is

necessary or incidental to a power given.

END QUOTE10 .Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that if we leave the

clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted which will safeguard the states15in the carrying out of any of their state laws over which the states are to be supreme even under

federation.END QUOTE.

Hansard16-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational20Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-

In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.

An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout theCommonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.25

END QUOTE.

Hansard19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE30

Mr. MCMILLA: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.

The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.

END QUOTE.

Hansard19-4-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational35 Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURER: No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not be necessary for theFederal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once. We have pretty heavy duties inVictoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them at once it may do serious injury to the colony. The40Federal Parliament will have power to fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a

sliding scale great injury will be avoided.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates45QUOTE Mr. BARTO.-

But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the

imposition ofuniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on thewhole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.END QUOTE50.


QUOTE Mr. BARTO.-On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it maydetermine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the average55opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform throughoutthe Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon the statesfor some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.

END QUOTE60


7/29


A 1st


Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

2. Customs and excise and bounties, but so that duties of customs and excise and bounties shall be uniformthroughout the commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods exported from onestate to another;5

END QUOTE

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE The CHAIRMA.-

Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty10 shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.END QUOTE

Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-15

It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed might be held to

be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.END QUOTE.

Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates20QUOTE

Sir GEORGE TURER:No. In imposing uniform duties of Customs it should not benecessary for the Federal Parliament to make them commence at a certain amount at once.

We have pretty heavy duties in Victoria, and if the uniform tariff largely reduces them atonce it may do serious injury to the colony. The Federal Parliament will have power to25fix the uniform tariff, and if any reductions made are on a sliding scale great injury

will be avoided.END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates30QUOTE

Mr. ISAACS.-The court would not consider whether it was an oversight or not. They would take thelaw and ask whether it complied with the Constitution. If it did not, they would say that it was invalid.They would not go into the question of what was in the minds of the Members of Parliament when the lawwas passed. That would be a political question which it would be impossible for the court to determine.35

END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. GLY.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the Constitution. There is no special court, but the40general courts would undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to prevent the question ofultra vires arising after a law has been passed.

[start page 2004]

Mr. ISAACS.-o. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it would, of course, be invalid.

END QUOTE45.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOH DOWER.-

No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament actcapriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let50the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, buttrust 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 theConstitution.

END QUOTE55



8/29


A 1st


Sir JOH DOWER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states onterms that are just to both.

Mr. DEAKI.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

Sir JOH DOWER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is requiredat all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and,5without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the verylife-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would

give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important partof the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have beenmuch debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.10

END QUOTE


Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law has15to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the Executive to callattention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a majority of the membersof the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed in the matter of procedure; itonly requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the Speaker has to give a legalinterpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the Senate to call the attention of20the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the Constitution for that proposed law to

be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the Constitution shall be

obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the Constitution. Neither Housecould pass the standing order which would give the majority power to dissent from the Speaker's orPresident's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain explicit power. They give no power to either House25to pass an order which would enable its members to amend the Constitution.

END QUOTE


QUOTE30Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the

Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each

state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, fromthe Federal Government as a 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 we have these elaborate35provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be

amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this

provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers

of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to

occupy a few minutes in discussing it.40END QUOTE.

As such, the Framers of the Constitution held that when you put together a body of experts of thes101 Inter-State Commission), such as say in regard of the railways, then this body of expertswould be competent to know what would be in the best interest of each State and its decision45

should not be subject to political manoeuvring but should only be subject to appeal on error oflaw..

It is not a political entity and neither a judicial entity but a commercial entity not existing withinthe other three branches. However it was held required making the Inter-State Commission50subject to the right of appeal where it governs error of law as not to have it made a final

judicial entity. The Framers of the Constitution also referred to the fact that the Federal parliament could in fact legislative to provide additional powers to the Inter-State commissionregarding other matters. As such, the Inter-State Commission therefore could be granted powers

by the Federal Parliament to deal with matters of hospital funding directed to the need of each55


9/29


A 1st


State rather then a uniform approach. What we have currently however is that the council ofAustralian government (CoAG) is now merely by using the leaders of the Commonwealth andthe States circumventing what the purpose is of the Inter-State Commission and turning this in a

political rather then a trade & commerce decision making entity. Basically CoAG isunconstitutional but who really is to stop it when the judges of the High Court of Australia5themselves appears to me to lack any proper understanding to the true meaning and applicationof the constitution?For example Andrew Wilkie the Independent Member of Parliament so to say extorted from JuliaGillard the undertaking for the Commonwealth the handing over of $100 million for a Hobarthospital in return for his support to be Prime Minister even so constitutionally it has got nothing10to do with him and in fact at the time he was a Memberelect and not even a Member ofParliament until he actually was sworn in some time later..

Hansard 24-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)15QUOTE

Mr. BARTO.-The High Court cannot act unless complaint is made, but the Parliament can actwhenever it likes.

Sir EDWARD BRADDO.-Only on motion.

END QUOTE20

We therefore have so to say toothless tiger in the High Court of Australia as it has no judicialpowers to interfere in such matters unless it is presented before the High Court of Australia as acase and even then as I experienced in 2003 the High Court of Australia then as I view it is

politically motivated to disregard the RULE OF LAW where it on 4 occasions refused to accept25my s75(v) application for a judicial determination against the unconstitutional armed invasioninto Iraq, as I then had set out that without the Governor-General having published in the Gazettea DECLARTIO OF WARto authorise such an armed invasion then the Minister of Defencehad no constitutional powers to invade Iraq and a Prime Minister has no constitutional position toauthorise an armed invasion into a country with which we were not at war.30.

WATSO v_ LEE(1979) 144 CLR 374;(JUDGE3 STEPHEN J.)QUOTE

As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at p

361 , speaking there of sub-delegated legislation, "there is one quite general35question . . . of supreme importance to the continuance of the rule of law

under the British constitution, namely, the right of the public affected to

know what that law is". The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the "working

hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to operate it requires that "thewhole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of course, that at any rate40its legal advisers have access to it at any moment, as of right".

END QUOTEAgain;QUOTE

it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of45course,

END QUOTE.

The Commonwealth of Australia ConstitutionActas such must be read in accordance to thelegal provisions of the Section 17 of theAct Interpretations Act 1901, which under the heading5017 Constitutional and official definitions refers to Proclamation shall mean Proclamationby the Governor-General published in the Gazette;


10/29


A 1st



The practice in England has been that when the House of Commons is dissolved, the Gazettewhich

contains the proclamation, or one issued concurrently, also contains a proclamation summoning a

parliament to meet on a given day, and all the writs are appointed to be returned on that day.5

END QUOTE.


According to the English practice there is always a parliament either summoned or prorogued.10Coincident with the dissolution of the old parliament is the proclamation calling the new parliament.

END QUOTE

HASARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)15

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

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

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

they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the

commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. o construction in the world could confer any20 powers beyond the ambit of those specified.

The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of theConvention 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 governmentof the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be25contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of thecommonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the

parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether theirlegislation was for the peace, order, and good governmentof the commonwealth? Surely that is

sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good30government 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.

END QUOTE.35Hansard2-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. BARTO.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a

person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by40being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by thelaws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.

END QUOTE

The purported WAR AGAIST TERRORIMS is another gross abuse of power and not within45 the powers of the federal government and neither should the High Court of Australia go alongwith a Attorney-General directing any court to issue a WARRANT because the moment this issanctioned then we might as well get rid of the judiciary as all the judiciary ends up doing is to

bow to its political masters. A court must be shown and appear to be impartial and only issueorders upon proper determination of evidence provided by both parties before it and never should50issue orders (including warrants) merely upon the say so of an Attorney-General.In constitutional terms a so called WAR AGAIST TERRORISM is not a war at all but ratheris a WAR FOR TERRORISM where the Government of the Day can terrorise its own citizensin clear violation of the magna Carta provisions and other relevant legal provisions. No court


11/29


A 1st


could sanction this kind of conduct because to do so would undermine the establish principles ofa DEMOCRACY.


QUOTE Mr. BARTO.-5Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the

Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates10 QUOTEMr. HIGGIS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to

the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that

we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power

over us.15END QUOTE

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVILRIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;HASARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational20Australasian Convention)QUOTEMr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled toclaim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE25.

HASARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,30END QUOTE.

HASARD 27-1-1898Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTO.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown35in prosecuting criminals are.

END QUOTE.

One cannot have that somehow some Government of the Day takes over the prerogative powersof the crown and the judiciary so to say aids and abet with this by preventing an application40within s75(v) of the constitution to be accepted for filing. When it comes to an issue of war acourt should never seek to employ legal technicalities to so to say side with the Government ofthe Day or may be seen to do so..

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational45Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:

Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be favoured the

appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia being a colonial

appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of England-and I hope that it is a50very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I maintain that the governor-general of the

future dominion of Australia must be the appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is

the apex of that structure, and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any

other [start page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions.END QUOTE55

HASARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE


12/29


13/29


14/29


A 1st


I recall that the High Court of Australia in a judicial determination made a ruling that a judgecouldnt ignore the huge amount of material as the issue was that if it was relevant to the casethen it had to be considered. Likewise, when I first made my application and it was refused to beaccepted for filing, and a review likewise provided for the same (dated 19 February 2003) I thenfiled the application amended as directed by the Registrar of the High Court of Australia and5supported by some about 800 page Affidavit setting out all relevant details, including Hansarddebates of the Framers of the constitution, and yet the subsequent judgment to refuse the matterto be accepted for filing actually referred back to the 18 February 2003 application and not the 18March 2003 application! You may check the High Court of Australia judicial records to find that

both actually refer to the same 18 February 2003 application where as the second application was1018 March 2003 application. As such to me the second application was refused as to the original(first) application and not as was revised on directions by the Registrar of the High Court ofAustralia. After all it would be idiotic for the High Court of Australia to reject an application thatwas actually filed as directed by the Registrar of the High Court of Australia! If one check thedifferent versions of the two applications it will become very clear that indeed the applications15are different in set up..


Mr. SYMO (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the20people 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 this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of

Australia to vote.The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king.This new

charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.25END QUOTE.

I admit that due to being involved in numerous cases I have been delayed in publishing my booksabout it (as I intended to do way back in 2003) already);

30ISPECTOR-RIKATI & The High Court as a STAR CHAMBER COURTA book on CD about irregular proceedings

(ISBN 0-9580569-9-4 prior to 1-1-2007) ISB 978-0-9580569-9-1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISPECTOR-RIKATI & High Court of Australia as a KAGAROO COURT35A book on CD as to improper legal proceedings(ISBN 0-9580569-8-6 prior to 1-1-2007) ISB 978-0-9580569-8-4

.

Those books will provide all the material regarding the applications and the judgments!.40Going by the High Court of Australia decisions/statements one may even say the following:

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 High Court of

Australia judicial officer killed if it wanted to.45.OK now you may think I lost my marbles to make such a highly inflammatory statement but letslook at it with a different subject matter such as:

But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it50likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every Member of

Parliament killed if it wanted to.

Or55


15/29


A 1st


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 Aboriginal killed if it

wanted to..

Well you get the message that this is about the powers of the Federal parliament that so the High5Court of Australia made clear that its powers exist to have any particular class of persons to bekilled if it wanted to..

index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635 10QUOTE

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

END QUOTE15

index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635index.php?act=findpost&pid=617635 QUOTE McHUGH J:

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 QUOTE20.

In 036-Chapter 007A The Great Deception of my 30 September 2003 published book:ISPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZESHIP

A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.25ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

.

HASARD1-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE30

Mr. GLY.-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 incertain 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 railway35accident, but he was debarred of remedy there, although he suffered serious injury, because of some defect inthe railway laws not conceding this right. The position has been laid down in regard to the Queen in the case Ihave already mentioned, that-

Where the land, or goods, or money, of a subject have found their way into the possession of the Crown, andthe purpose of the petition is to obtain restitution, or if restitution cannot be obtained, compensation in40money; or when a claim arises out of a contract, as for goods supplied to the Crown or to the public service-

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

Magna Chartathat justice cannot be denied, sold, or delayed. By this action, similar rights of action aregiven to the subject against the Crown in cases in which the subject can maintain a claim against anothersubject.45

END QUOTE

HASARD17-3-1898Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE50

Mr. DEAKI.-

. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,END QUOTEAnd55QUOTE

Mr. DEAKI.-


16/29


17/29


18/29


19/29


20/29


A 1st


END QUOTE.

HASARD1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTO.- The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except5that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.

END QUOTE.

HASARD9-2-1898Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE10Mr. HIGGIS.-o, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

END QUOTE.

HASARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE15

Mr. SOLOMO.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,

but also for thejust interpretation of the Constitution:

END QUOTE.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates20QUOTE Mr. BARTO.-

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 ofany 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 free25Constitution. 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 protect30the 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 popular35

liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made theirwork 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 willdetermine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt40with 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 acourt appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its45

provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of theConstitution. 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 theConstitution, they are bound to serve.What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of50this 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 of55constitutional 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

60


21/29


A 1st


What we have to be aware of is that the judiciary must be independent and act impartial and thisI view has been a considerable problem with not just the usage of tribunals but also the HighCourt of Australia itself..

The Courts having engaged in using AB (Australian business Numbers) is to underline this5where for example the Prostitution control commission if a defendant in a case would have thesame ABN number as the Director of Public Prosecution as the Prosecutor and also the sameABN number as the Courts of the State of Victoria being it the Magistrates Court of Victoria, the

County Court of Victoria or the Supreme Court of Victoria and therefore all parties as well as thecourt would be together in the same business at least by the ABN registration.10.

Hansard 25-3-1897Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ationalAustralasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. O'COOR:You cannot ask a judge to serve two masters.15

END QUOTE.

Therefore judges have to declare their position if they are belonging to an independent branch ofthe judiciary or they are in cahoot with the government of the Day..20Fancy judges appointed by their oath of office to the British Monarch then somehow make aruling in Sue v Hillwhich I view is tantamount to TREASO as to declare some Queen ofAustralia. Well the judges should first have then resigned and be appointed by this illusive Queenof Australia and get paid by this Queen of Australia and we all might have been better of.

25HASARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Dr. COCKBUR:All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentarysovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw

parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are30not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power

of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary

sovereignty. o parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have thepower of changing its constitution at its own will.Again, instead of parliament being supreme, theparliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in35one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensedwith, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary

which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter

of the constitution.END QUOTE40.

So lets have a consideration as to what this means to members of the Bench of the High Court ofAustralia or for that matter any other court. The purported Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is nota constitution at all as it was not submitted and neither approved by state referendum. Still it

required a person to have Australian citizenship which doesnt exist as a nationality at all. If45 judges of the High Court of Australia do not even understand/comprehend that AustralianCitizenship is a political status that can only be obtained by being granted State citizenship, a

political right, then I view they better resign their positions..

Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the ational50Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It applies only to pensions during pleasure. The object is to prevent personswho are dependent for their livelihood upon the government, and who are amenable to its influence,

from being members of the legislature. There is no reason that I can see why a man who has served his55country, and to whom a permanent pension has been allowed, should not be permitted to sit in the legislature.


22/29


A 1st


But a "pension during pleasure" might be given; and the holder of such a pension should certainly not beallowed to become a member of parliament.

END QUOTE.

With theSykes v Cleary case the High Court of Australia seemed to overlook the cardinal issue5that this related to an employee employed by the commonwealth and not by the States. Thecurrent s44 was originally in several clauses but in 1897 Barton announced that it didnt alter the

position but just that it was all grouped together. As such Phill Cleary being in the employment

of the State of Victoria had nothing to do with his constitutional right to be a Member of theFederal Parliament. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear even a current Member of a10State parliament could stand for election and if duly elected then and only then has to decide toresign his State position and accept the Federal seat or not. As such a Minister in a StateGovernment may be elected but his party may not attain government and so he may just decideto stay with his State ministerial portfolio.As such it is irrelevant if a person at the time of election is or isnt entitled to be a Member of15Parliament as the Framers of the Constitution made clear the person could still be a bankrupt butas long as he was able to dispose of this before taking up the seat in the Federal Parliament hewas entitled to have the seat elected for.What we have however is that s44 specifically excludes any person to be a member of parliament

when receiving a salary from the Commonwealth and hence the provisions are for Members of20Parliament to receive an allowance which is to compensate them for the loss of income of theirordinary daily income in private employment. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear thatany person being a Member of parliament would ordinary be at a financial loss to be a Memberof Parliament w. Well, we wonder then why Members of Parliament via the RemunerationTribunal then are awarded huge pay packets?25More over the Remuneration Tribunal function, even if the court were to seek to twist themeaning of the salary to be an allowance then still the lack of any control by the parliament(abolished in June) means that the power is not constitutionally valid even if it was deemed thatthe Remuneration Tribunal really isnt setting salaries but mere allowances..30

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/10381977/politicians-pay-could-hit-250-000/ QUOTE

Politicians' pay could hit $250,000AAP October 1, 2011, 4:53 pm

END QUOTE35QUOTE

Legislation passed in June allowed the tribunal free reign to set the base pay of politicians.

Previously, the government was able to reject tribunal recommendations about pay increases.END QUOTE.40

18028622-Sturgeon-v-Los-Angeles-Ruling- that provides that allowances are part of a judgesalary. (10-10-2008) Then at point 10;

QUOTE

However, these defects are relative minor compared with the absence in Lockeyer-Isenberg of any45standard of inherent safeguard by which future increases or decreases in judicial benefits would be

regulated. The fact the county itself has elected to tie its benefits to the benefits it provides other

salaried employed is not a substitute for a legislative mandate that it do so.END QUOTE.50This means that when we consider the provisions of the constitution:Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)


23/29


A 1st


.

QUOTE

3 Salary of Governor-GeneralThere shall be payable to the Queen out of the ConsolidatedRevenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the5Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliamentotherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds.The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during hiscontinuance in office.

END QUOTE10AndQUOTE

48 Allowance to membersUntil the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and eachmember of the House of Representatives shall receive an15allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from theday on which he takes his seat.

END QUOTEAndQUOTE20

66 Salaries of MinistersThere shall be payable to the Queen, out of the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of theMinisters of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliamentotherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a25year.

END QUOTEAndQUOTE30

72 Judges appointment, tenure, and remunerationThe Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by

the Parliament:(i) shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council;(ii) shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in35Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament inthe same session, praying for such removal on the ground ofproved misbehaviour or incapacity;(iii) shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix;but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their40continuance in office.

END QUOTE.

It appears to me that therefore not a single judge how receives a salary as determined by theRemuneration Tribunal would be validly sitting in office because of the failure of the parliament45to supervise the salary, regardless if it were to agree with any recommendation the RemunerationTribunal were to make. The same with the salary of the Governor-General, the Ministers and theMembers of parliament they all by this are in breach of constitutional limitations because they alleffectively are in breach of s44 albeit the Governor-General is not affected by s44.It means that by the judiciary, and all Members of Parliament accepting and having accepted50

payments of a salary without the supervision of the Parliament then they all are technically nolonger lawfully in their respective positions but I view are impostors..

EITHER WE HAVE A COSTITUTIO OR WE DOT!


24/29


A 1st


.

Meaning that if we have judges, members of parliament and a Governor-General all seeking tolay claim upon the constitution that provides for their respective positions then they all betterwake up to reality that as I view it none are legitimately in their respective positions because ofthe unsupervised payments to them. The fact that Members of parliament by not being re-elected5can have a reported $30,000 severance pay also indicates they are employed by theCommonwealth and as such in breach of s.44 sitting in the Federal parliament. The same withwhere they are receiving a superannuation as this belongs to a salary and not to an allowance

because an allowance is to include it all! And again the framers of the constitution made clearthat any person sitting in the Federal parliament would be more then likely out of pocket because10of the loos of income from his ordinary employment. As such, the framers of the Constitutionnever held that a Member of Parliament would be employed by the Commonwealth or receivesome kind of salary. And as to Ministers they are neither employed with the Commonwealth

because their pay is to be from the British Crown as the constitution dictates that it shall bepayable from Consolidated Revenue Funds to the Crown. It is for the Monarch to decide what15payments, including any superannuation, is to be paid to the Ministers (advisors to the Governor-General) Her majesty may very well transfer a Minister or the Governor-General to another areato serve her there and why on earth should then a pension be payable?Likewise those former Members of Parliament and their families using Gold Card and other

benefits this is all unconstitutional because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that only20while in office holding a seat in the parliament can a person be paid and this also was the issuewhy with Senators their pay finish when the next Senator takes over the seat as the Framers ofthe Constitution made clear that one couldnt pay an Senator-elect because one could only payone person. Well, check the expenditure of the Consolidated Revenue Funds and you find allkinds of payments to Members-elect without actually holding a seat in the Parliament.25As such, my writing is not just to have a so to say dig on the judiciary but rather exposes what Ideem to be the corrupt practices by so many..

In my view the judiciary has betrayed their oath of office in many ways and soon or later

people will turn against them also.30.

The fact that all the judges of the High Court of Australia visited the then first defendant theGovernor-General and subsequently dismissed my appeal would be seen by many as a act offraternizing with the first defendant and by this the subsequent orders to be null and void,without legal force.35.

And lets look at the following of the High Court of Australia website also:.


25/29


A 1st


I now have reproduced the end of the left column listing:5

.Oops, the High Court of Australia has listed the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal(generally known as VCAT) under the heading State Courts10.

Surely one could have expected that the High Court of Australia understands and comprehendsthe difference between what constitutes a State court or what constitutes a Tribunal that iseffectively a Government Department?.15So lets have a look at its website:


26/29


A 1st


Well for so far I could elicit from the Victorian Hansard VCAT it was set up as a medicationcentre but no appeal DE NOVO exist as one can only appeal on errors of law and I view this

makes it unconstitutional as it effectively has a Government Department conducting5 unsupervised judicial issues. The fact that no DE NOVO provision exist to have the matter heardbefore a Court of law means it is pretending to be a court when clearly this would be in breach ofChapter III for the constitution as the judiciary must be impartial and not be part of theGovernment as VCAT is..10I am not aware that the State of Victoria gazetted that the Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal was a court within the provisions of Chapter III judiciary and I invite you to point outwhen this was perhaps published as such.

I DEMAD that the High Court of Australia correct isnt website immediately and so without15delay as citizens will be deceived by the High court of Australia website in the belief that VCAT

is a State court as after all people should be entitled to rely upon the High Court of Australia toknow what it is doing..

Because the States were created within s106 of the constitution they are bound to observe the20independence of the judiciary and cannot interfere with this..

HASARD 11-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. CLARK:What we want is a separate federal judiciary, allowing the state judiciaries to remain25under their own governments.

END QUOTE.


27/29


A 1st


HASARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. SYMO.-

Then, I think myself, some confusion may arise in consequence of the reference to the state in the words"Proceedings to be taken against the Commonwealth or a state in all cases within the limits of the judicial

power." ow, it does not appear to me that we ought to interfere in any way with the functions of a state5to regulate the proceedings which it, as a quasi-independent political entity, may prescribe for the

regulation of its own legal proceedings.END QUOTE.

This doesnt mean the State governments can disregard the separation of powers because the10 States are created within s106 of the constitution and so bound by all embedded legal principlesof this constitution..

It is not for the High Court of Australia to then do its own thing and pretend that a tribunal issomehow a State court and I condemn the High Court of Australia to have published this kind15of rot..

Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335

QUOTEThe basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of20everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.

ED QUOTE

No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:LORD ATKIN inAMBARD v ATTOREY-GEERAL for TRIIDAD and TABAGO(1936) A.C. 332, at 33525QUOTE

But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned,no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in goodfaith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, thewrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper30motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism,and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not acloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments ofordinary man

ED QUOTE35 .The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER THE EVEIG EWS (1880) N.S.W.LR 211 AT 239.:

QUOTE40The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice ofsitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day,would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to berigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.

ED QUOTE45.

As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368(b) Re WASEMA(1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59(c) ReBOROVSKI(1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 53750(d) SOLICITOR-GEERAL v RADIO AVO LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31

.

I have attempted to present some details as to indicate my grave concerns as to how I view theHigh Court of Australia is basically undermining the very constitution and/or constitutional

provisions by which it was created.55

When public confidence is undermined by the judiciary itself then people may resort to takingthe law into their own hands because no reliable judiciary can be deemed to exist..


28/29


A 1st


If indeed the High Court of Australia has been misleading the general public as well as the rest ofthe international community that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a State Courtdespite it not being so then this is a very serious matter because even people residing overseas inother jurisdictions may then be fooled by this as that they are dealing with a court when in factthey are not at all.5.I have for long recommended that all States and the Commonwealth has the OFFICE OF-THE-GUARDIA ( Dont forget the hyphens!) as a constitutional council to advise theGovernment, the People, the parliament and the Courts as to the true meaning and application ofthe constitution so that all persons regardless of their respective positions are provided with the10same information. Then the current salary debacle may well have been avoided as nowlegislation is enacted without proper background information to what is constitutionally

permissible. And I wonder have we not by this essentially judges being paid outside the provisions of the constitution and so to say made themselves all ineligible to be sitting as ajudicial officer? And who is going to adjudicate upon this I may ask?15.

Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759

QUOTEThe fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that "o man can be a judge in his own case". It has

long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression20 that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision ofthose who made the decision.

ED QUOTEReg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17.25Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17.Black v. Black(1951) N.Z.L.R. 723Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458

.

This underlines why an appeal to the Privy Councilis so important as the framers of the30constitution made clear that it would not consider matters to the local conditions but wouldadjudicate upon the strict letter of the law.

.R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236QUOTE35

However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to thinkthat the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, thecourt which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspectedof bias in this sense; it must be "firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered inthe minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and40arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R vWatson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).

The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question,butwhether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning45MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited withapproval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte AnglissGroup (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well conveythe impression of "protesting to much"...

ED QUOTE50

The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:QUOTE

"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This isan obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. InR. v Rand(1866) it was held that a judge is55disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii)there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.


29/29


For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be reallikelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by LordChief Justice Heward inR. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, butshould manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'5

As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal(1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a Chancery suit in

favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the company.Held: (by the House of10 Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground ofpecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, norcould it be shown that Lord Cottenham was in any way influenced by his shareholding.

END QUOTE.

In my view the idiotic 14 November 2006 ruling on the WorkChoices issue may underline that15there needs to be a more informative judicial decision making process as clearly the taking out ofcontext of quotations of the Framers of the Constitution is not what the people should be servedup with..

ISPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD)20A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision

ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-B&W)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision25ISBN 978-0-9751760-7-8---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-Colour)

A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 DecisionISBN 978-0-9751760-8-530

.

Perhaps judges instead of travelling the world at taxpayers expense they would do better tounderstand they are appointed to provide informed judicial decisions and if they desire to travelaround the globe then let them resign and take it up as some profession for some travel agency

but while they are being paid out of the public purse we should be expected to have judges who35know what the constitution is about, and this I view they are lacking currently to do..

In my view appointing any lawyer as a judge of the High Court of Australia simply cannot do, asthey ought to have first been trained in constitutional matters, so they for example at least canunderstand that the Commonwealth of Australia is not some country but is nothing more but a40POLITICAL UIO and in that context also theSue v Hilldecision in my view is sheer andutter nonsense!So much more to state but for now I will leave it by it albeit this correspondence is not intendedand neither must be perceived to refer to all relevant details or issues, neither set out matters inany order of importance!45.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL.

(Our name is our motto!).50

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

111017-ceo & principal registrar - demand to correct - etc

Documents