20230611-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 96-Naturalization Vs Nationality by Native Birth, Etc

1
1
2
3 Reece Kershaw (Australian/Victoria date) 11-6-2023
4 Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
5 Forwarded via email [email protected]
6
7 Cc: [email protected] Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Therapeutic Goods Administration
8 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch, MDP 122
9
10 [email protected] Committee Support Unit, Therapeutic Goods Administration
11 PO Box 100, WODEN ACT 2606 Attn: Scheduling & Committee Support Section, MDP 122
12
13 Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
14 Email via portal: https://ministers.ag.gov.au/hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp/contact
15
16 Mr Daniel Andrews Premier [email protected]
17 [email protected]
18
19 Re: 20230611-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 96- -
20 naturalization vs nationality by native birth, etc
21
22 COMPLAINT
23 Sir,
24 further to my original COMPLAINT of 6 August 2021 I provide a further supplement hereby.
25
26 I have been supportive in the Federal government in past years seeking to control the influx of any
27 unlawful entry by so called window shopping refugees, which really might be economical chosen
28 refugees. However, as a constitutionalist I view that the Australian Federal Police dramatically
29 failed in protecting the rights of native Australians and let them being deported as “stateless”.
30
31 With the Voice scam now perpetrated upon Australians as much as was the “covid scam” we also
32 have what could be held to be a “stateless scam” by the various political parties.
33
34 “If it be conceivable that the representatives of the people
35 of Australia as a whole would ever proceed to use their
36 national powers to injure the people of Australia
37 considered sectionally, it is certainly within the power of
11-6-2023 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation,
or E-mail [email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
2
1 the people themselves to resent and reverse what may be

2 done. No protection of this Court in such a case is
3 necessary or proper. Therefore, the doctrine of political
4 necessity, as means of interpretation, is indefensible on any
5 ground.” Cf. [Bill of attainder] Society of Engineers’ case (1920), HCA 54; 28 CLR
6 129 at 152; “It is not the function of the government(s) to keep the citizen [people] from
7 falling into error; it is the function of the citizen [people] to keep the government(s) from
8 falling into error.” [Cf. American Communications Association vs. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, p.
9 442, (1950), Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief Prosecutor, Nüremberg Trials); “The rule that
10 you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour.”
11 Lord Atkin on duty of care in landmark case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.
12 Infracted Legislation:
13
14 As I did set out in my below quoted statement the Commonwealth has (constitutional) legislative
15 powers as to “naturalization and aliens”, this so the Commonwealth could regulate the
16 naturalization of aliens as well as dealing with aliens who resided within the Commonwealth of
17 Australia but are not naturalizing. The Commonwealth never had any legislative powers within
18 our federal constitution to declare any native born Australia to be “stateless”! A natural born
19 person is AUTOMATICALLY an Australian! My quotation below sets it out!
20
21 What is the constitutional meaning of being a native?
22
23 Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
24 Australasian Convention)
25 QUOTE
26 Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public
27 life. I am an Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I
28 am associated assume a position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
32 QUOTE
33 William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official
34 and labour movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
35 Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a
36 bootmaker.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
40 QUOTE
41 Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional Convention
42 (1897–98) that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901. His support of
43 Federation was over the objections of many in the labour movement, and served to ameliorate
3
1 accusations that the Federation Bill had been "wholly shaped in a conservative direction" as
2 accused by the Age.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
5 QUOTE
6 Trenwith was married three times. His first marriage was to Susannah Page on 2 November 1868 and they
7 had four children, a daughter and three sons. Susannah died in 1896. His second marriage was to Elizabeth
8 Bright on 7 April 1896 and they would have three children, a daughter and two sons. Elizabeth died in
9 1923. His third marriage was to Helen Florence Sinclair on 1 October 1924.[1]
10 Trenwith died in Melbourne on 26 July 1925, aged 79, survived by his third wife and his seven children. [1][8]
11 END QUOTE
12
13 It must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that regardless of “race” any person
14 natural born in what is now known as the Commonwealth of Australia is an “Australian native”.
15
16 In the following quotation “natives” referred to Aboriginals:
17
18 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
19 QUOTE
20 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the
21 Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
22 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this
23 colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives
24 who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
25 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
26 aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
27 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
28 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they
29 ought not to be deducted.
30 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
31 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts
32 in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these
33 aboriginals vote.
34 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
35 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with
36 this matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per
37 capita, if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to
38 pay, whilst if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
39 Clause, as read, agreed to.
40 END QUOTE
41
43 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
44 The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the
45 parliaments of all the states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the
46 affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of
4
1 the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United
2 Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the provisions
3 of this constitution.
4 We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and
5 governments of the several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may
6 desire to see a law established; but we are obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the
7 Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good enough to make the law for
8 us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an opportunity
9 of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the
10 legislatures of Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within
11 Australia, and then parliament of the commonwealth should have that power. It is not
12 proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the commonwealth to interfere
13 with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in requesting
14 such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have
15 recourse to a parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been
16 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is
17 not proposed to give the parliament of the commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will
18 have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those powers, the
19 existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make
20 laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is
21 only when the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make
22 laws on those matters that the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to
23 the extent to which the federal legislature chooses to exercise its functions. In addition
24 to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with the existing rights of states
25 until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some
26 exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the
27 affairs of people of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make
28 special laws not applicable to the general community; but so that this power shall not
29 extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia
30 and the Maori race in New Zealand.
31 END QUOTE
32
33 Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
34 QUOTE
35 Captain RUSSELL: I see that the order-paper is headed the "National Australasian
36 Convention," and, therefore, being a member of the Australasian group, I may say that so
37 far, in listening to the debate, it has struck me, to use a quotation from the Bible, in which I
38 am afraid I may not be absolutely correct, that "Whilst ye worship me with your
39 mouths, your hearts are far from me." I have been listening, as a representative of a
40 remote part of Australasia, for the true federal spirit. It has been supposed that the federal
41 spirit does not exist in New Zealand. I venture to say, without hesitation, that in any
42 debate in New Zealand on the question of federation, we should have heard more of
43 Australasia and less of Australia. It is a broad question that we are here to deliberate
44 upon, and as I am now only filling a gap of five minutes, and have most distinguished
5
1 colleagues to follow me, I am unable to enter upon the different subjects at the length
2 I should wish; but the great question that we have before us now is not the creation of
3 one large colony on the continent of Australia, but to endeavour so to frame a
4 constitution that all parts of Australasia shall be able to attach themselves to it should
5 they now or hereafter think fit to do so. It is perfectly true that New Zealand has decided
6 to send but three delegates to this Convention; but I would point out that, at the
7 deliberations of the conference last year, though nothing was affirmed on the subject, it
8 was held by all the speakers that in all probability the voting at the Convention would take
9 place by colonies, and if that is the case surely the voice of three men expressed in one
10 vote might in itself be held to have as much effect as the voice of a host, inasmuch as it
11 would be the still small voice of a strong feeling, and not the loud popular clamour which
12 so often means nothing at all. The great question that Australasia has to consider at
13 this moment is whether Australasia will constitute herself the mother state to which
14 all the other peoples in the neighbourhood shall attach themselves. There are many
15 questions of great importance which hinge on that, and which have not been alluded to in
16 this resolution, and which could not have been alluded to by any of the previous speakers.
17 The great object of any federal constitution, according to my mind, at any rate-I speak for
18 myself-the great desideratum should be to so frame a constitution that the remoter portions
19 of Australasia should be able to join themselves on to what we may term the mother
20 colony, should they think fit so to do. My hon. friend, Sir Samuel Griffith, in speaking
21 yesterday, dwelt much, and I think very properly, upon the question of the senate. It has
22 been said that the people should have the entire power, seeing that they represent the purse.
23 That is a truism. It has become, I think I may almost say, a fetish throughout all British-
24 speaking communities, that the power in every question should rest with the bare majority.
25 That majority is often very bare and very narrow; and though to the very fullest
26 extent I concede that the power must rest with the people, it is a very open [start page
27 65] question whether countries ought to be submitted to the cyclonic effects of
28 popular gusts of passion, unchecked by any authority whatsoever, and I venture to
29 affirm, though it may seem paradoxical, that the senate might possibly more truly
30 represent the majority of Australasia than might the people's representatives in the
31 house of assembly. In the first place, I would say that it is absolutely essential if the
32 weaker colonies are to come into a federation that they shall have a numerical majority for
33 the time-being, because we are not speaking now for an ancient people in a country fairly
34 populated, but we are speaking for large territories which yet have to be colonised, in
35 which great numbers of people will be settled on places which at present are waste and
36 uncultivated-and if we say that the sole power shall rest in the hands of those who chance
37 at the moment to represent a majority of the colonised portions of Australasia, how can we
38 expect that we shall have a true federal union? How can we imagine that the outlying
39 districts will submit themselves to what, I believe, may be the tyranny of a chance
40 majority? Let us give to the senate, then, full power, seeing that in all probability it will
41 represent numerically the majority of Australasia rather than those who chance to be the
42 people's delegates for the moment in the house of representatives. There are many points
43 which have not been considered, and with which I will not bother the Convention at the
44 present time; but I would ask them to bear in mind that if we are to adopt the present
6
1 system of responsible government-and I may mention incidentally that in New Zealand

2 there is a very strong section of public men who are beginning to doubt the wisdom of
3 responsible government, and I appeal to the premiers of the neighbouring colonies in this
4 Convention as to whether they themselves do not admit that there are very many
5 drawbacks and defects in the system of responsible government; that is to say, one of the
6 principal questions which affect the deliberations of representative institutions throughout
7 Australasia is who is to be premier and who is to go out of office. Great public questions
8 are subordinated in nine cases out of ten to personal popularity and the maintenance of a
9 certain set of people in office, and no hon. member here who has sat long in a
10 representative chamber can deny that business of the greatest importance is perpetually
11 shelved, that stone-wall is set up periodically-I might almost say perpetually-to endeavour
12 to prevent public opinion being given effect to, because it chances that the large minority
13 in the house have some other views which they wish to put before the country; that, in
14 other words, we have failed during recent years by representative government to get a true
15 expression of opinion from the people. I maintain that such is the case in almost every
16 colony in Australasia. I have watched it with some care and with great pain. But if we give
17 considerable power to the senate I venture to say that that power will to a very great extent
18 diminish. It is not necessary that I should now go into details as to what the business of the
19 senate may or may not be; but so soon as Australasia develops into a nation, so soon as it
20 becomes a power having dealings with foreign nations, I maintain that the system of
21 turning out governments upon some small question I will not say of public policy, but
22 some very small question, the continual shuffling of the cards, the ejectment of men
23 from office owing to no failure of duty on their part, will become a very great
24 inconvenience. When we begin to have ambassadors, or something similar to
25 ambassadors, negotiating with foreign countries, when we have an agent-general
26 representing us in England, I venture to [start page 66] say that the ejectment of
27 ministers from office continually and perpetually without any good reason at all will
28 interfere very materially indeed with what I may term the foreign policy of
29 Australasia; and, therefore, we ought by some means or other to endeavour to put a
30 check upon the system of the ejectment of ministers from office without reason,
31 thereby curtailing the benefits which they could confer on the united colonies, and
32 also interfering materially with the foreign policy of Australasia. The reason why I
33 think we should have a system of federation as loose as possible is this: that all the more
34 outlying portions of Australasia must be allowed to work out their own destinies. When
35 you think that we, in our own colony, have what may be termed a foreign policy, inasmuch
36 as we deal with an alien race, that we have laws very materially affecting them, that the
37 questions of native title are matters of very grave moment, and that any interruption
38 in our relations with those people might be of the most serious importance to the
39 colony, I think you will agree with me that we shall require to see that we have a safeguard
40 in all such respects as these before we submit ourselves to a federal authority. And so, in
41 the colonies of northern Australia, you yourselves may yet find that you have difficulties
42 unforeseen to cope with, It is true that the native races of the more settled portions of
43 Australia have given you but little trouble, and you have dealt with them summarily,

7
1 but possibly when you go to northern Australia you will find there a race more
2 resolute and more difficult to deal with.
3 Mr. PLAYFORD: No!
4 Captain RUSSELL: Of course I must bow to the wisdom and experience of those who
5 have already had to deal with them; but be that as it may, if New Guinea is ever to become
6 a part of Australasian federation, there, at any rate, is a people that will require to be dealt
7 with most carefully. Yet I have heard no member of the Convention speak on that subject.
8 There is nothing in these resolutions contemplating the possibility that there will be a
9 foreign race to deal with. But consider this difficulty, which I merely outline to you. The
10 great and all-pervading question that occupies men's minds in all parts of the world at the
11 present moment-it is undoubtedly doing so now in Australia, and it is a question more
12 advanced in my own colony than here-is the great social question-what is termed the social
13 upheaval, and I venture to say that every colony must be left to deal with a question like
14 that. It is a matter for social dealing. It is a matter with which men will deal rather
15 through municipalities than through a great federation in advancing, what I believe it
16 is necessary we should advance, the true liberties and freedom of the people.
17 Therefore, what we want is not the unification of Australasia, but a federation into which
18 all portions of Australasia may be drawn.
19 END QUOTE
20
21 What this underlines is that the Framers of the Constitution held that any land rights claim was to
22 be settled before the federation were to eventuate! And not that somehow the High Court of
23 Australia being “part” of the constitution and not above it, somehow later can claim there are
24 native title rights.
25
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
29 Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being
30 in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so
31 much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink
32 at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should
33 we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say
34 that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may
35 unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why
36 not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for
37 that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
38 END QUOTE
39 And
40 QUOTE
41 Each individual and each state looks upon it that such declaration is given only in
42 pursuance of the Constitution. Public attention is probably directed to other matters, and
43 the question has, in many cases, shrunk into its native insignificance; and "it is to the
44 interest of every man who wishes the Federal Constitution to be observed that the
45 judgments of the federal tribunals should be respected, and they take it that the courts are
8
1 the protectors of the federal compact, and that the federal compact is, in the long run, the
2 guarantee of the rights of the separate state."
3 If the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) was carried into effect-though of that, I
4 think, there is not the slightest chance-it would follow that any person who was aggrieved by an
5 unconstitutional enactment would have to persuade the Attorney-General of the state or of the
6 Commonwealth, as the case might be, to in some way set the law in motion to ascertain the legality
7 of the enactment,
8 END QUOTE
9
11 QUOTE The Hon. J.H. HOWE:
12 . I remember once reading about an Irish deputation which waited upon one of their
13 representatives, and accused him of selling his country. Of course the incident that I am
14 relating refers to the time when Castlereagh and English gold deprived Ireland of its
15 parliament, and almost enslaved its people; and when the deputation waited on him, and
16 accused him of having done a certain thing to the horror of, the deputation, he went down
17 on his knees and thanked God that he had a country to sell. We who come from the other
18 colonies are not imbued with that idea. We are here to give that which is memory to the
19 vigorous life of a free people occupying the whole of Australia; but we are not in a
20 position, and we do not intend to give you that which belongs purely to the state. I say that
21 I would rather become a native of Japan, than remain the citizen of a small state that
22 yielded the powers that this Convention is trying to force from it. What would national life
23 be without freedom? We have done very well hitherto. Our colony is looked upon as a
24 small colony that is, so far as population is concerned; but we have done great work with
25 our population; we are a vigorous and a free people: we have undertaken works of great
26 magnitude; we have the intelligence and common-sense to know when our rights are
27 invaded, and we have the courage to try to maintain those rights. However much, from our
28 geographical position, we may desire federation, it must not be a federation which will
29 make us subservient to the larger colonies.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 It should be understood that the High Court of Australia or for that any other court never had
33 jurisdiction to define/declare “citizenship” as being “State Citizenship”!
34
36 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
37 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard
38 to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
39 pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
40 Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the
41 term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE

9
1 Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?

2 Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one who
3 is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a
4 definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."
5 Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?
6 Mr. SYMON.-Why not?
7 Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.
8 Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of a
9 corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.
10 [start page 1783]
11 Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation.
12 Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I
13 END QUOTE
14
15 The following underlines also:
16
17 “They could not take away the rights of British subjects.”
18
19 Constitutionally Australians are and remain to be “Subjects of the British Crown” No
20 constitutional amendment was ever made by way of Section 128 referendum to give the
21 Commonwealth the powers to deny a native born child to be denied the same rights as other native
22 born children.
23
24 As was shown the Ah Toy case that the Commonwealth had every right to deny an alien to enter
25 the Commonwealth of Australia to be a citizen but it cannot interfere with the rights of a natural
26 born child whom AUTOMATICALLY has the nationality by birth. It must be understood that
27 the term “citizenship” generally related to whomever was residing in a State (then colony) and
28 also if the person so residing was qualified to be an elector to have franchise. The Framers of the
29 Constitution for example debated about “baby franchise” being undesirable and so Section 41 of
30 the constitution refers to “adult” whatever the Commonwealth deemed to be an “adult” age. This
31 meaning that a say 16 year old could be entitled to vote in a State election but if the Commonwealth
32 had “adult” age as 18 then this 16 year old could not e3xercise to vote in a federal election.
33
35 QUOTE
36 Mr. DEAKIN: I do not think it is fair. I can conceive circumstances in which it would
37 not be. But the hon. member's proposal is not fair unless he couples with it a provision that
38 it is only to apply after a uniform franchise has been established.
39 Dr. COCKBURN: The proposal will undoubtedly be an advantage to the women of
40 South Australia, as it will class them as electors instead of as infants. Otherwise it is a
41 baby franchise. It will be some year or two before Federation is accomplished, and it will
42 be some time after that before the Constitution is amended, and there will be plenty of time
43 for the franchise to become uniform. I do not suppose there will be any amendments in the
44 Constitution for ten years
45 END QUOTE
46
10

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. HIGGINS.-It would exclude baby suffrage.
4 Mr. GLYNN.-Undoubtedly it would. Mr. Kingston has pointed out that my amendment
5 would make it apply to the same rights as are in existence at the time of the
6 Commonwealth. That is quite fair. After the establishment of the Commonwealth, if there
7 is to be uniformity on a broader basis, it must be the federal policy, because it is the
8 Federal Parliament that would be affected by the change. I recommend the insertion of the
9 words I propose in the old clause, instead of putting in Mr. Barton's amendment. If Mr.
10 Barton's amendment is put in, I would ask for a change in the grammar, because at the
11 present it is not correct. The word "has" only governs the last part of the disjunctive
12 proposition, whereas it ought to govern both parts, and it should be put after the word
13 "Commonwealth."
14 END QUOTE
15
17 QUOTE
18 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-What I said was that I do not believe anybody here wants the
19 franchise to be given to persons under 21 years of age. I was not referring to anybody
20 outside. Now, what are we discussing? You certainly have provided in the clause with
21 regard to the amendment of the Constitution to the effect that the South Australian vote,
22 being an adult vote, shall be allowed to continue. You want to carry that out logically, and
23 therefore you provide that any other colony shall be allowed to adopt franchise laws
24 similar to the franchise law of South Australia. I do not suppose that anybody wants to
25 provide more than that; but you want to make the provision of this particular clause broad
26 enough to allow any other colony to extend its franchise to the same extent as the franchise
27 has been enlarged in South Australia. The amendment of Mr. Glynn would certainly allow
28 the colonies to make any laws they like-baby suffrage, I think, was one of the
29 interjections I heard.
30 Mr. GLYNN.-None of the states could do that. They could not go beyond the South
31 Australian suffrage, and have baby voters.
32 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-But I think the honorable member will admit that this does not
33 relate to the present time, but to the time when this Bill is passed by the Imperial
34 Parliament.
35 Mr. MCMILLAN.-We are on very dangerous ground.
36 END QUOTE
37
38 HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
41 subjects of the British Crown.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE
46 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
11
1 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.

2 Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
3 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
4 inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
5 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
6 within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
7 citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
8 to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
9 definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
10 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
11 Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
12 Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
13 determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
14 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
15 END QUOTE
16 .
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
20 co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
21 disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
22 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 And this is why Ss51(xxvi) 1967 referendum was a con-job referendum because the electors
26 were never advised that by changing Ss51(xxvi) then Aboriginals would actually lose their rights
27 of franchise/voting!
28 The moment be is under any disability imposed by the
29 Parliament be loses his rights.
30
31 This means that constitutionally any race law immediately causes all persons of that race to
32 lose “suffrage”! Where there have been legislation regarding Aboriginals then not a single
33 Aboriginal has “suffrage” and neither so can be a Member of Parliament!
34
36 QUOTE
37 Mr. SYMON.-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in
38 constitutional law than Mr. Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has
39 been the subject of more or less debate and discussion, and will be until the end of time.
40 The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy at
41 all times if occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle that
42 there should be a definition of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr. Quick or
43 by Mr. Barton. I will be quite content. The principle is what I am contending for: The
44 principle that our labours will be incomplete unless we make the rights of citizens or
45 subjects in one state to extend to the citizens of another state who may go from one state

12
1 to another. There ought to be no possibility of any state imposing a disqualification on a

2 person in the holding of property, or in the enjoyment of any civil right, simply
3 because be happens to belong to another state. That would not give us the uniformity of
4 citizenship we all desire, and therefore I am willing that the word "citizenship" should be
5 defined as Dr. Quick suggests, with perhaps some modification. I also support the
6 suggestion from the Chair that the two propositions might be considered together. The
7 clause would do something to meet the difficulty, not perhaps finally or conclusively, as
8 Mr. Isaacs, said, but at any rate to a large extent and almost completely.
9 [start page 1788]
10 END QUOTE
11
12 When then “Travelling Pete” (Anthony Albanese) and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus are going
13 on about Voice they obviously haven’t got a clue that this is utter and sheer nonsense, because
14 once any race is banned from having suffrage they cannot somehow obtain it by backdoor manner.
15 The correct manner would be to reverse Ss51(xxvi) by referendum how it was prior to the 1967
16 Ss51(xxvi) referendum, as well as to delete Section 25!
17
18 I have below responded to an article:
19 https://theconversation.com/voice-treaty-truth-compared-to-other-settler-nations-australia-is-the-exception-not-the-rule-
20 206092?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202649426711&utm_content=The%2
21 0Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202649426711+CID_1a3f00004dee7f8435c6b8264b8dbeb0&utm_source=campaign_monito
22 r&utm_term=Voice%20treaty%20truth%20compared%20to%20other%20settler%20nations%20Australia%20is%20the%20exce
23 ption%20not%20the%20rule
24 Voice, treaty, truth: compared to other settler nations, Australia is the exception, not
25 the rule
26 Published: June 9, 2023 6.07am AEST
27
28 QUOTE my 10-6-2023 Facebook post
29 One thing that very much is often at the centre of Aboriginals claims is the sign “White
30 invaders you are living on stolen land” which in my view is an absurdity, yet Professor
31 Amanda Nettelbeck doesn’t seem to enlighten the reader about this. As I recently wrote about
32 in 1656 the Dutch claimed the Southern Land as “NEW HOLLAND” and as such “The
33 doctrine of terra nullius, or land belonging to no one, was how Britain claimed
34 possession in 1788.” was wrong because the Dutch in the early 1600’s already had one way
35 or another landed/shipwrecked in the part now known as Western Australia and French
36 shipping logbooks recorded copper coloured blond haired natives with cultivated land and
37 Dutch type of buildings. Even after generations you still will find Aboriginals with white skin
38 and blond hair as Caucasians. The High Court of Australia in the MABO case did not at all
39 refer to the Dutch having claimed New Holland for itself, neither that the Dutch Government
40 had never recognised Aboriginals “native title”, but merely about Captain Cooke landing in
41 one part of New Holland and then claiming it for the British Crown. In my view Professor
42 Amanda Nettelbeck
43 Therefore skips very important details and that in itself I view should be questioned as to
44 why when she is a “historian”?

13
1 Another issue is that the proposed section 129 Voice is an absurdity to purport to political
2 recognise Aboriginals as First Nations. What does “First Nations” actually stand for? Is it
3 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders being separate nations? Is it different Aboriginal tribes
4 somehow now referred to as “First Nations”? What is really an Aboriginal one has to ask? Is
5 it inclusive of a non-Aboriginal to “identify” as an Aboriginal? As some Elders over the
6 decades made clear, when an Aboriginal donates blood to the blood bank then any person
7 receiving such blood becomes an Aboriginal! Ok, now we may have lost of deemed non-
8 Aboriginals actually being deemed Aboriginals but no one knows really who they are. Would
9 the first criteria have to be to determine what person can be held to be an Aboriginal? Many
10 so called Aboriginals may very well have ancestors who were not Aboriginals and so by what
11 criteria are they then deemed to be Aboriginals? Or is it that we are going to differentiate
12 between those deemed to be Aboriginals as to how much or how little they may have
13 Aboriginal ancestry? One may also have to consider what is a native! Is a person natural born
14 in the Commonwealth of Australia (previously NEW HOLLAND) to be deemed a native? If
15 say, what about children born to asylum seekers, etc, who are natural born in Australia but
16 somehow deported as “stateless”?
17
18 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
19 34 Qualifications of members
20 QUOTE
21 (ii) he must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for
22 at least five years naturalized under a law of the United
23 Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a
24 State, or of the Commonwealth, or of a State.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Section 541(xxvi)
28
29 QUOTE
30 (xix) naturalization and aliens;
31 END QUOTE
32
33 In my view Professor Amanda Nettelbeck as an historian ought to have understood that
34 “naturalization” is different than being “natural born” already by birth having the Australian
35 nationality.
36
37 While Professor Amanda Nettelbeck refers to other nations, she doesn’t explain the
38 differences between their constitutional and that of what is now known as the Commonwealth
39 of Australia!
40
42 QUOTE
43 Clause 52, sub-section (2).-Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout
44 the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty shall be imposed on any goods passing from
45 one state to another.
14
1
2 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I have prepared an amendment with regard to this
3 sub-section, which puts the matter into a form which would express the intention of the
4 Convention, whilst avoiding a difficulty. Honorable members will recollect the difficulty
5 that arose over the construction of words equivalent to "uniform throughout the
6 Commonwealth" in the United States of America. Although no actual decision has been
7 given, a doubt has been raised as to the meaning of the word "uniform." The celebrated
8 income tax case went off as to the direct apportionment of taxation amongst the people
9 according to numbers, and this point was not decided, but a great deal of doubt has been
10 thrown on the meaning of the word in the judgment of Mr. Justice Field. I think that
11 although the word "uniform" has the meaning it was intended to have-"one in form"
12 throughout the Commonwealth-still there might be a difficulty, and litigation might arise
13 about it, and prolonged trouble might be occasioned with regard to the provision in case,
14 for instance, an income tax or a land tax was imposed. What is really wanted is to
15 prevent a discrimination between citizens of the Commonwealth in the same
16 circumstances. I beg to move-
17 That all the words after the word "taxation" where it is first used be struck out, and that
18 the following words be substituted:-"but not so as to discriminate between states or parts of
19 states, or between goods passing from one state to another."
20 I conceive it to be quite unnecessary to retain these words in view of clause 89,
21 prescribing free-trade among the several states, under which any duty or tax on goods
22 passing from one state to another would be clearly invalid, and could not possibly be
23 allowed by the operation of the preference clauses. I propose not to say anything about
24 goods in this connexion passing from one state to another, as that is sufficiently provided
25 for, and I put in this provision, which prevents discrimination or any form of tax
26 which would make a difference between the citizen of one state and the citizen of
27 another state, and to prevent anything which would place a tax upon a person going
28 from one state to another. I beg to move-
29 That all the words after the first word "taxation" in the second sub-section be omitted,
30 with a view to inserting the following words-"but not so as to discriminate between
31 states or parts of states, or between persons or things passing from one state to
32 another."
33 The amendment was agreed to.
34 END QUOTE
35 Again:
36
37 What is really wanted is to prevent a discrimination between
38 citizens of the Commonwealth in the same circumstances.
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject
43 of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in
15
1 America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses
2 his rights.
3 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
4 END QUOTE
5
6 The American system is that a child natural born in the USA is an American regardless if the
7 parents might be unlawfully in the USA.
8
9 One cannot do any “naturalization” of a natural born native (child) as it already has the
10 nationality of the country it is born in, in Australia referred to as being an Australian, albeit as
11 I have extensive successfully canvassed in legal proceedings in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka
12 (representing myself) that there is no such thing in constitutional provisions as an “Australian
13 Citizenship” as a “nationality”!
14 The High Court of Australia has only judicial powers to “interpret” the intentions of the
15 Framers of the Constitution and as such any judgment in conflict of the constitution and so its
16 embedded legal principles have no legal value and so force at all. Therefore children that were
17 deported from the Commonwealth of Australia as “stateless” even so born as natives in the
18 Commonwealth of Australia were deported in violation of the constitutional embedded legal
19 principles.
20 Regardless on which side of the argument one might be as to people unlawfully entering the
21 Commonwealth of Australia, one can however only respect any woman to go through hardious
22 journey to desire to have her child to be born in the Commonwealth of Australia. This is an
23 extra ordinary self-sacrifice that can cost the mother and the child their lives and must never be
24 ignore, as both might have their lives ended at the peril of the see as SIEV-X did with 353
25 people, including 146 children!
26
27 Getting back to the sign “White invaders you are living on stolen land” clearly cannot be
28 justified because long before Captain Cook, Dutch sailors (and others) integrated with
29 Aboriginal tribes and more than a century before Captain Cook claimed New Holland for the
30 United Kingdom. The question then should be asked was Dutch ownership of New Holland
31 then extinguished merely because Captain Cook made his declaration or that the High Court of
32 Australia with its reference as to terra nullius, not being correct was I view incorrectly
33 presented by purporting Aboriginals owned the land and ignoring the Dutch claims in about
34 1656 and also despite Aboriginals didn’t own the land but rather lived on the land.
35 Those who were natural born in what is now known as Commonwealth of Australia never can
36 be referred to as “invaders” or living on “stolen land” merely because they are “white” of skin
37 colours as after all there are other races of different skin colours living in the Commonwealth
38 of Australia. As such the real racism is that by the Aboriginals themselves.
39
40 Further, the constitution is not one designed to recognise any race but may do so in providing
41 certain constitutional provisions. Hence, Ss51(xxvi) since federation provided protection for
42 Aboriginals (which included what now is referred to as Torres Strait Islanders) to be equal to
43 other Australians. That was in that manner a clear recognition, however politicians and
44 Aboriginals rather pursued to change this and oh boy how did this result in discrimination, just
16
1 that it appears to me historians and constitutionals fail to grasp this and remain silent about it
2 because it is the undesired truth. A different truth that that the article purports to present.
3
4 I would urge readers to also check out my writings:
5
6 It seems to me that Chin Tan is a Race Discrimination Commissioner who fails to
7 understand & comprehend what is constitutionally applicable and as such I view he
8 fails to understand the implications of the proposed constitutional amendment of
9 Voice.
10 You can download the document from:
11 https://www.scribd.com/document/651560368/20230608-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-
12 Chin-Tan-Race-Discrimination-Commissioner
13
14 The proposed Voice is an utter and sheer nonsense and would clash with Ss51`(xvi) as well as
15 with s25 and other legal principles embedded in the constitution.
16
17 We had this elaborate “covid scam” and this was about “trust science” and other rot when in
18 reality it was to deny “real science” to be part of the communication so that the lies and deceit
19 from politicians and their collaborators were pushed through and many Australians became
20 victims and many paid with their lives as result.
21 This is why we must ensure that instead of having people giving their kind of version
22 ignoring the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution
23 we do ensure first State/Territory conventions to be held before any, if any at all, proposed
24 constitutional amendment is pursued.
25 END QUOTE my 10-6-2023 Facebook post
26
27 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
28 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
29 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
30 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
31 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
32 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
33 authority of the United States”.
34
35 Let this not be ignored!
36
37 We have “Travelling Pete” (Anthony Albanese) in my view deceiving electors that it is a mere
38 “modest” amendment when it complicates a lot of issues because you cannot have uniform laws
39 as is constitutionally required if Aboriginals are getting special treatment. It also means that the
40 reported 3,000+ Aboriginal companies having special registration based upon “race” is
41 unconstitutional because it doesn’t fall within Ss51(xxvi) at all! The same with the reported $30
42 billion because there is no special constitutional provision to permit for this as it is not UNIFORM
43 ‘throughout’ Australia for all citizens.
44
17
1 The fact that so much of the billions of dollars was wasted may underline that current and past
2 politicians simply lacked any proper training and understanding in constitutional matters. One of
3 my readers suggested to have proper constitutional education for students once they are 13 years
4 old.
5
6 Obviously one has to question why Anthony Albanese is so much pursuing the same or similar rot
7 of previous governments instead of ensuring matters are properly considered. It is the policies that
8 are defective and I understand many Australians of Aboriginal descent enriched themselves
9 reportedly in millions of dollars which never was put to the use for those Australians of Aboriginal
10 descent for whom it was intended to be used. The Voice will not alter for one of iota this gigantic
11 rip off and will likely only escalate problems, this as the Voice doesn’t seems to be under any
12 regulation how any abuse/misused can be subject to proper checking, etc. As such it will somehow
13 become something in its own rights without any6 proper supervision or any system in placer to
14 thwart abuses.
15
16 One may wonder why on earth he (Anthony Albanese (and minions) neither has bothered to ensure
17 that all those native born children are not now provided their constitutional rights as Australians.
18
19 Also, I understand that the State of Victoria has now set out to have a republican to be the next
20 Governor. Her husband apparently is running the PM office. That would be a clash because if she
21 were to be conducting the affairs as Governor-General then there in my view would be a conflict
22 of interest. Moreover, politicians and others seems to fail to understand that no referendum can
23 turn the Commonwealth of Australia in a republic! If they do not understand/comprehend this then
24 they in my view are incompetent to hold any government position.
25
26 For now in my view everything should be done to ensure that those who were natural born in the
27 Commonwealth of Australia but deported as “stateless” are immediately recognised as being
28 Australians and have every right to reside in the Commonwealth of Australia.
29
30 It also should be understood that
31
32 (xxvii) immigration and emigration;
33 (xxviii) the influx of criminals;
34
35 does not at all give the Commonwealth any legislative powers to deny any Australian to enter or
36 leave the Commonwealth of Australia and neither to deny by scandalous conduct a person such as
37 Novak Djokovic to play tennis.
38
40 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
41 I do not think the word quarantine, for instance, which is used in the sub-section of the
42 52nd clause, is intended to give the Commonwealth power to legislate with regard to any
43 quarantine. That simply applies to quarantine as referring to diseases among man-
44 kind.
18
1 END QUOTE
2
3 Even the issue of “QUARANTINE” is limited to “MAN-KIND” infectious diseases and as such
4 the Commonwealth can only have such a person placed in quarantine if reasonably suspected of
5 being infected or being infected. Then the Commonwealth can only petition a court of competent
6 jurisdiction to seek to have a person to be injected. The Commonwealth cannot enforce its own
7 rules without the court having sanction it. And the Courts cannot sanction any unconstitutional
8 conduct.
9
10 It is appalling how much is being done wrong in violation of the legal principles embedded in the
11 constitution and this needs to be as a matter of extreme urgency corrected.
12
13 At least get those Australian native born children back or at least provide the parents with an option
14 for them to return and possibly so the parents, siblings, etc.
15 So much talk is down to shove down the throats of people about harm to Aboriginals that was
16 allegedly done hundreds of years ago but the same kind of consideration is denied to the very
17 native born children wrongly deported as “stateless”. That may just underline what a hypocrites
18 those politicians and their enablers are!
19
21 QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:
22 The resolutions conclude:
23 An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to
24 time be appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of
25 office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives
26 expressed by the support of the majority.
27 What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of
28 the new nation as similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional
29 advisers who shall stand as nearly as possible in the same relation to the representative of
30 the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial advisers stand is relation to the
31 Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to lay down as a
32 foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite
33 other gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in
34 view.
35 END QUOTE
36
38 QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
39 We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the
40 Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case
41 the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
42 END QUOTE
43 .
45 QUOTE
19
1 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

2 END QUOTE
3 .
5 QUOTE
6 Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution
7 we will have to wipe it out."
8 END QUOTE
9
10 As such, the Governor-General should have a proper system in place that for any person to be
11 commissioned to join “a body of constitutional advisers” that person must prove to be having
12 comprehensive knowledge about the true meaning and application of the legal principles
13 embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). After all putting
14 someone in charge of a Department who hasn’t got a clue as to what is constitutionally permissible
15 is putting a police officer on traffic duty who hasn’t got a clue what the road legislative provisions
16 are about. What we have however is that they commission people to be Minister who might be a
17 so called known singer without any proper understanding and comprehension what is
18 constitutionally permissible or not, and then people end up dying.
19
20 You cannot have a Minister who is supposed to be a constitutional adviser then having to rely
21 upon lawyers who may or may know a thing about the constitution. What we appear to have is a
22 system that is a non-system where everyone somehow relies upon someone else as advisers and
23 none of them really have a clue what is constitutionally permissible and appropriate.
24 And, let us also take “Travelling Pete” Anthony Albanese) position. He before the purported 2022
25 federal election and there after has been pushing what he deems to be “vaccines”. To my
26 knowledge he was not commissioned to be the Minister for Health and so should stay out of health
27 issues! Then he also is involved in pushing the “boosters” and that includes Australians of
28 Aboriginal descent. Now get this there are ample of scientific reports available that the so called
29 “vaccine” is causing a spade of problems including deaths but he let that not deter you to promote
30 it neverthe4less, regardless if Australians of Aboriginal descent may end up death. And he so much
31 views that there has to be a Voice for Australians of Aboriginal descent that he has Department
32 seeking to stop any person (including any Australian of Aboriginal descent) to post in the internet
33 any opposing views exposing the harm of having a jab. So, his kind of Voice appears to be
34 selective as to what he and his collaborators may accept to be concurring with their views.
35 That is not how he appears to me to claim the Voice will be about.
36 If already he silence or disregard the views if Australians of Aboriginal descent and some are
37 actually Members of the Federal Parliament then why on earth it would be better to have some
38 Voice in the constitution. If you do not bother to listen and consider the voices of members of
39 parliament because you pursue, albeit incorrectly, your own kind of political agenda then why
40 pretend the Voice would be any different in that regard?
41 Let it be clear Ministers are commissioned to assist the Governor-General aqs to what is
42 considered the best for ALL Australians and not just some of them who happen to belong to some
43 political party. As such, political goals never can override a Ministers obligation to represent
44 equally all Australians. What we have is that politicians in the Government now are turning the
45 government into a weaponised political tool to serve their political aims rather than representing
20
1 all Australians regardless of any political association. Because Ministers are “constitutional
2 advisers” to the Governor-General they must therefore act in an impartial manner for all
3 Australians and pushing their wheelbarrow to suit their political aspirations never can be accepted.
4
5 We now have that Anthony Albanese proves to abuse his position as a Minister big time to
6 advertise with yes23 and providing funding for them and others while not doing the same for the
7 NO campaign. This I view in itself should invalidate the proposed referendum as it must be the
8 electors who freely vote on any change of amendment and not being coerced into voting a
9 particular manner because the Government of the Day provide extra ordinary funding of what it
10 desire to be the outcome of the proposed referendum and by this deny electors to make an
11 “INFORMED DECISION” and used deceptive and misleading statements that electors can vote
12 for a law, which they cannot, as at most the can vote for a proposed constitutional provision!
13
15 QUOTE
16 Clause 54. Laws appropriating any part of the public revenue, or imposing any tax or
17 impost shall originate in the house of representatives.
18 Mr. WRIXON: I would suggest a trifling amendment in this clause. I think that the
19 word "laws" is not a very happy expression as applied to measures appropriating public
20 revenue. I think it better to keep to the old phraseology of "bill." It is quite true that a
21 money bill is a law.
22 Mr. CLARK: It does not appropriate till it is a law!
23 Mr. WRIXON: There is a difference between money bills, when they become laws and
24 other bills, as we all may see by the preamble of an appropriation act and the preamble of
25 different bills granting money. They are, in fact, grants of money by the taxpayers to the
26 government. There is an awkwardness in using the word "laws" instead of "bills." It may
27 give a certain force to the contention that money bills are like other bills, and are to be
28 dealt with in the same way; but except for that I do not think it is the best term to use, and I
29 should prefer to have the word "bills" inserted instead of "laws." I move:
30 That the word "laws" be omitted with the view to insert in lieu thereof the word "bills."
31 END QUOTE
32
33 The same with a proposed amendment, it is not an amendment unless all legal requirement have
34 been complied with and if for example not sufficient electors voted to support a proposed
35 constitutional amendment then it never can become law!
36
37 I also will express my concerns that Banyule City Council is in my view meddling in political
38 issues to which it has no right to do so. Municipal/shire councils are to provide certain services as
39 a corporation and to claim it:
40
41 “Banyule Council has made a commitment to adopt the Uluru Statement from the heart in
42 full and to make practical action to advance it core components: Voice, Treaty and Truth
43 Telling.”
44
21
1 it has in my view cross the line to and insults everyt native born citizen within Banyule that unless
2 they are of Aboriginal descent the4y essentially are now second class citizens.
3 “Racism” at work, bug time!
4
5 Banyule Council claims:
6
7 The Uluru Statement is a call by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to change the
8 way Indigenous Australians are recognised and a call for a stronger voice in their own
9 affairs.
10
11 One doesn’t use the legislative part of the constitution to express any recognition and Australians
12 of Aboriginal descent were recognised as equal since federation! When you got people meddling
13 in constitutional issues they obviously haven’t got a clue about then this I view is a very serious
14 matter. As for Aboriginals having a say in their own affairs that surely has been going on for
15 decades by time and time again there were in Aboriginal bodies which squandered monies or
16 simply enriched themselves and no amount of constitutional amendments will alter this!
17
18
22
1
2 The only way to improve the system is to make sure that those who are placed in fat cat public
3 servants positions are appropriate trained and also made aware that if they defraud the system they
4 have legal accountability to come!
5
6 Why is the Uluru Statement needed?
7
8 Changes is needed because Australia has seen decades of failed policies directed towards
9 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; policies created by governments without input
10 from the people who are directly affected by them.
11
12 This in my view is a gross and utter deception!
13
14 I understand that 2 brothers being Australians of Aboriginal descent were Ministers for Aboriginal
15 Affairs in the Commonwealth and WA. So, it were Aboriginals in charge. I understand that both
16 agreed for a mining company to reportedly destroy some 40,000 Aboriginal artefacts. Hello, which
17 idiot doesn’t understand and comprehend that this were Aboriginals themselves allowing this kind
18 of destruction of artefacts that belonged to ALL Australians for their historic importance?
19
20 I now have to refer to the Late “Kumanjayi Walker” who was of Aboriginal descent. I understand
21 that the First Minister of the territory claimed that Aboriginal Elders had approved to place
22 Aboriginals into quarantine centres when they did not have a jab. I know of no constitutional
23 provision as to allow Aboriginal Elders to deny any Australian of Aboriginal descent their
24 constitutional, legal, human and natural rights. I understand there was no litigation let alone a court
25 order that Late “Kumanjayi Walker” was to be incarcerated in a quarantine camp. Neither did
26 the Commonwealth itself, having exclusive legislative powers, require this.
27 Before VOICE was inserted in the constitution I warned about the danger s and specifically raised
28 the incident of the Late “Kumanjayi Walker” that this could be repeated in a disastrous manner.
29 In my view the Voice would make it worse as all a government needs to do is to get the Voice to
30 go along to deny Australians of Aboriginal descent to be forcefully injected with whatever poison
31 that is planned to commit Genocide and well it can be achieve and this whole notion of Voice will
32 purportedly wipe out Australians of Aboriginal descent their constitutional, legal, human and
33 natural rights. Where already Elders did so to deny Australians of Aboriginal descent their
34 constitutional, legal, human and natural rights and the Late “Kumanjayi Walker” paid the price
35 with her life in this “covid scam” then one has to be a lunatic to go along with making it worse for
36 Aboriginals!
37
38 And let not ignore Banyule City Council disregarding citizens their constitutional, legal, human
39 and natural rights when it jumped on the bandwagon with the terrorist government to enforce
40 unconstitutional mandates. I in the past stood as a candidate to be a councillor and well as with
41 state and federal elections discovered that the people employed with electoral commissions were
42 interfering with my campaign big time. Even where a sitting councillor was using council staff to
43 harass me, etc.

23
1 Well, I offered my services and well obviously was not elected and then I view that the harm
2 electors copped since was in a sense self-inflicted.
3
4 It is like this if a car mechanic recommend me to have a service and I ignore this and later has the
5 car breaking down due to the failure of having a service then I view this would be self-inflicted.
6 Likewise so when electors vote for certain persons, no matter their possible gross incompetence,
7 well then so be it. However, I do not have to accept that they then impose their stupidity upon me
8 or use my monies for it.
9
10 Honouring our commitment to the Uluru Statement
11
12 Together with our First Nations community and Banyule’s Reconciliation Action Plan
13 Advisory Committee, Council is acting on its commitment to the Uluru Statement and will
14 hold community dialogues and information sessions to promote discussion and
15 understanding
16
17 Here we have what I view utter and sheer nonsense to support something when to my knowledge
18 there is no definition as to what constitutes an Aboriginal?
19
20 Where is the definition, as now the High Court of Australia held that even criminals born in another
21 country can nevertheless remain in Australia if the local Aboriginals accept them as part of them?
22 Here we had the HCA violating the separation of powers as it is to hand down judicial judgments
23 upon legal issues and not interfere with the Commonwealth Parliaments right to decide how
24 policies are applied.
25
26 The same where the HCA allowed ma previous deported criminal but who came back in under a
27 false identity and then having fathered a child was allowed to stay in Australia, this while native
28 born children are deported as “stateless”. Again the absurdity where the HCA has overstepped its
29 legal powers big time.
30
31 Let us not ignore the unconstitutional Victorian mandates where basically Victorians were
32 unconstitutionally imprisoned and well, let Banyule City Council show when if ever at all it looked
33 after the residents who after all are charged rates (albeit unconstitutionally) when they were
34 prevented to go about their ordinary daily task including shopping? I am not aware a single time
35 any offer was made to assist and my now 90 year old wife was even prevented to attend to the
36 local hospital to see her cardiologist for her heart failure and other comorbidity to argue about her
37 rights! Then again she has only been a resident for about 60 + years and so don’t expect councillors
38 to be aware that she newly arrived some 60 years ago. After all they are too busy to meddle in
39 Aboriginal affairs and others basically can drop death.
40
41 If Banyule City council is all about what is best for Aboriginals then let us know how many times
42 it did assist those Australians of Aboriginal descent during the lock up? How many ended up dying
43 having been deceived to have the bioweapon poisonous jab or even harmed otherwise?

24
1 And this may underline why all this bleeding heart statements about caring for Aboriginals really
2 comes down to a lot of froth from their mouths but in real terms it underlines that even with this
3 Uluru Statement in the end it doesn’t change at all what has been and continues to go on. It is all
4 big talk to try to make themselves looking good while doing really nothing as to actually improve
5 the system.
6
7
8 So in 2017 the Uluru Statement was made and then subsequently this was nicely covered by the
9 company registration! Who are the shareholders? Why indeed turn this into some private
10 company?
11
12 When some 30 billion dollars plus are already spent on Aboriginal issues and yet it is claimed it
13 didn’t improve their system then surely nothing will improve unless you actually improve the
14 system itself, which appears to me to be currently a system of self-indulgence.
15
16
17 As I have often written about the Commonwealth has exclusive legislative, executive and
18 administrative powers regarding “man-kind” infectious diseases and well why is Banyule City
19 Council then nevertheless participating in an unconstitutional vaccination program regarding
20 measles, polio, etc? It may argue that it is following State Government policy. Well TGA John
21 Skerritt was claiming to follow government policy regarding the covid issue and well so to say the
22 streets are littered with the dead bodies of the victims. So, in the end when it came to the Uluru
23 Statement it seems to me that Banyule City Council could not give one of an iota how Australians
24 of Aboriginal descent and others were harmed by the “gene treatment” parading as a ‘vaccine”.
25
26 That may really show how sickening Banyule City Council claim is as this Uluru Statement I
27 understand was dated 2017 and well Banyule City Council still seems to ignore this with pushing
28 the child hood unconstitutional vaccinations that are not within the powers of the State where it
29 relates to “man-kind” infectious diseases. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, just following orders. OK
30 many of the NAZI’s ended up hanging on the end of a rope for this!
31
25
1 QUOTE
2 The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned
3 friend has hinted at. This is an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution,
4 where treaties are dealt with by the President and the senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the
5 empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom,
6 and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties,
7 but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they
8 neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think,
9 ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other suggested amendments when the time comes.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 Oh, but he seems to me to claim it is to recognise Aborigines. Moment that is not what a section
13 is for! The Preamble is for that and that cannot be altered because it is a British Constitution Act.
14 One then may ask what about the so called Australia Act (UK) & (Cth)? Well that will neither do
15 as it cannot permit in any event to amend the Preamble.
16
17 Then we have also “Travelling Pete” soon after the 2022 purported federal election travelling to
18 Ukraine to assure Australia is with them. Never mind it is not at all his position as (prime) Minister
19 as he is not the Minister for Foreign Affairs and neither the Minister for Defence and cannot
20 authorise some war mongering without the Minister for Defence having succeeded for the
21 Governor=-General to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR naming the Russian
22 Federation and whatever other country.
23
24 This is the problem when you got people placed in Ministerial positions who lack any proper
25 understanding as to what is constitutionally applicable.
26
27 And then we have Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus whom is noted to be a QC (Queens Council)
28 and yet appears to me to be totally oblivious what the legal principles embedded in the constitution
29 are or simply chose to go along with TREASON/TERRORISM against Australians,.
30 In my view he as Attorney-General should have stepped in, even if it did mean to petition the High
31 Court of Australia for this.
32
33 Now with the newly appointed Governor for Victoria, it is not my concern if she holds republican
34 views (political liberty) as along as it doesn’t undermine her position to act as the Governor. Any
35 republican statement she now might make may be deemed that she as the appointed Governor
36 would know what she is talking about. In my view she likely hasn’t got a clue as to what she is
37 talking about if it includes she in any shape or form was to endorse/promote, etc, for Australians
38 to vote to be a republic. It simply is not within Section 128 referendum powers for this!
39
40 Getting back to the issue of Ministers as being “responsible Ministers”, here we have them often
41 parading as bleeding hearts how much they care about the lives of Australians, while actually
42 achieving the opposite. “Travelling Pete” is in my view a very much of an example for this. Oh
43 he care about Aboriginals and desire them to have a Voice , but forget about it when the World
44 Health Organisation (WHO) implements its master plans to rob Australians (and that includes
45 those of Aboriginal descent) of their constitutional, legal, human and natural rights including their
26
1 common rights. Well ‘Voice” or not the WHO will ignore this because purportedly “Travelling
2 Pete” gave it authority to blatantly override the legal principles embedded in the Commonwealth
3 of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), as after all even the day after the purported 2022 federal
4 election and a day before “Travelling Pete”
5 Was sworn in as (prime) Minister he then seems to me have supported for the WHO to override
6 our constitution. OK, constitutionally he lacks any such powers but why would he care? After all
7 this whole Voice issue is to push the global agenda. As such WHO can demand and enforce
8 (perhaps with its UN troops – which I understand already – albeit unconstitutionally- was
9 legislated for during the previous (government) federal Parliamentarian sittings) to forcefully
10 inject Australians (including those of Aboriginal descent) with any poison and well Voice or no
11 Voice it materially will not make a difference because they just get all mass murdered and dead
12 people cannot protest about their Voice and other constitutional, legal, human and natural rights.
13
14 So, here you have already a “race” division, even amongst those of Aboriginal descent because
15 there are many who simply realise this is an elaborate con-job as was the “covid scam” for power
16 hungry politicians and nothing to do with for the real benefits of Aboriginals.
17
18 There is this nonsense that somehow the Voice is going to “close the gap” of life length of those
19 of Aboriginal descent. OK why not ensure the Voice stipulated those of Aboriginal descent are to
20 be at least becoming 100 years old, and then see how this will change in real terms the age
21 achievements of Aboriginals! I can assure you this is utter and sheer nonsense because whatever
22 the constitution stipulates would not for one of iota have a real influence upon how old anyone
23 can be as to old age achievement where it much depend upon the physical conditions of each
24 person. And with the jabs the “closing of the gap” might actually widen it, as races are specifically
25 targeted using the jab!
26
27 Let us now go back to the citizenship issue:
28
29 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are
32 all alike subjects of the British Crown.
33 Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more
34 comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in
35 the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
36 clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
37 the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
38 and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
39 interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
40 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or
41 citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
42 END QUOTE
43 Again;
44 QUOTE
27
1 we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire.
2 It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.
3 END QUOTE
4
5 Meaning that even if (but that was defeated during the conventions) the Commonwealth could
6 create federal citizenship then still it would not alter Australians nationality as being “Subjects of
7 the British Crown”!
8 However it could interfere with the powers of the States to determine who shall or shall not be a
9 “citizen” and then prevent them to provide suffrage to any State citizen.
10
12 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
13 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard
14 to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to
15 pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the
16 Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the
17 term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Again;
21 QUOTE
22 we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the
23 principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes
24 with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Therefore, whatever electoral provisions may be enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia, it
28 remains subject to what the Framers of the Constitution intended.
29 Mr King clearly failed to pursue this option, to have first matters placed before the Court to
30 validate any legislation that was objected against!
31
32 It is a matter of fact that I was issued with a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” No.
33 ME9401317C on the 28th day of March 1994. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Director
34 of Public Prosecutions contest the issue of this certificate.
35 The certificate states;
36 QUOTE
37 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
38 Australian citizenship Act 1948
39
40 Certificate of Australian Citizenship
41
42 GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
43 Born on 7 th June 1947
44
45 having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
46 prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
28
1 and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.

2
3 I the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,
4 Grant this Certificate of Australian citizenship to the abovenamed applicant who is
5 an Australian citizen on and after 28 th March 1994.
6
7 Issued by the authority
8 Of the Minister
9 For Immigration and
10 Ethnic Affairs.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka
14
15 It must be clear that no kind of application can be made for this and neither can any be granted
16 by the Commonwealth of Australia in that it is AUTOMATICALLY obtained upon obtaining
17 “State citizenship”.
18
19 Therefore, what is really occurring was that I applied to my understanding to naturalize and by
20 this dispose of my Dutch nationality to become a British national within the meaning of
21 Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and the Commonwealth of Australia purport this to be
22 somehow to be “Australian citizenship”.
23
24 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning
25 not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
26 Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
27
28
29 Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia cannot turn naturalization into something else not
30 contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.
31
32 Subsection 51(xix) naturalization powers had nothing to do with political rights, that are included
33 in citizenship, but related to alliance to the British Crown.
34
35 “Australia” is a continent, and was so before Federation, at least that is what I perceived was
36 applicable also at the time of Federation.
37 The Framers of the Constitution made clear that at all official functions the national anthem was
38 to bless the Monarch.
39
41 QUOTE
42 Mr. GLYNN:

29
1 The foundations of our national edifice are being laid in times of peace; the invisible
2 hand of Providence is in the tracing of our plans. Should we not, at the, very
3 inception of our great work, give some outward recognition of the Divine guidance
4 that we feel? This spirit of reverence for the Unseen pervades all the relations of our
5 civil life. It is felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes,
6 in the oath that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the
7 recognition of the Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the
8 anthem through which on every public occasion we invocate a blessing on our
9 executive head, in our domestic observances, in the offices of courtesy at our meetings
10 and partings, and in the time-honored motto of the nation.
11 END QUOTE
12
14 QUOTE
15 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
16 Thus we are forced-after, forsooth, the 1891 Convention and the three sessions of this
17 Convention-back to the elementary consideration of whether this body is to be analogous
18 to the position of the House of Lords in [start page 2036] England, and we have the
19 English Constitution brought in, and an appeal made through our patriotism, and "God
20 save the Queen," and all that sort of thing. That is not the question which we have to deal
21 with. We have to do our best to arrange a Constitution which has very little analogy to the
22 English Constitution, but, at the same time, from the circumstances of our birth and the
23 love of country, we have to adhere to the English Constitution as nearly as is consistent
24 with the altered condition of things.
25 END QUOTE
26
27 Whatever the argument might be of those seeking to advocate that the Commonwealth of Australia
28 is an independent nation, the truth is that constitutionally it never is and never can be.
29
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
33 I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever
34 to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I
35 have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In
36 the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
37 indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
38 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby
39 established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
40 Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
41 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
42 are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
43 is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the
44 Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a
30
1 republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a

2 Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that
3 in the slightest degree. The first clause says-This Act maybe cited as the Commonwealth
4 of Australia Constitution Act." I assent to all that. Then comes clause 3, which says it shall
5 be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy
6 Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being
7 later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of the colonies enumerated shall
8 be united in a Federal Constitution under the name of-I say it ought to be "of Australia."
9 Why do we want to put in "the Commonwealth of Australia"? We are there by our
10 Constitution giving the name to our country, and, to the united people who are to be
11 established as a nation under the Constitution. By what name, I would like to ask
12 honorable members, will they call this Federal Union? It will be called by the name
13 Australia, whether we like it or not.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Again;
17 That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
18 be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
19 "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
20
21 The Commonwealth of Australia is a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION by the Colonies (now
22 States) as like the EUROPEAN UNION is in Europe.
23
24 QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
25 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
26 Attorney General 19-11-2002
27 Victoria
28 Fax 9651
29 0577
30 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
31
32
33 URGENT
34 Sir/Madam
35
36 Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have as to be able to
37 obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it was stated;
38
39 “As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth,
40 not the States. You indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you
41 are an Australian citizen.”
42
43 This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil
44 Branch of the Department of Justice.
45
31
1 Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of the
2 High Court of Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isn’t in the Constitution,
3 then the Commonwealth had no legislative powers.
4
5 RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this
6 is clearly unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must deal
7 with State Citizenship!
8
9 Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of
10 Victoria to the Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution,
11 I view, there never was and still is no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to
12 determine State or any other citizenship!
13
14 At most, the Commonwealth, could determine “citizenship” as the local law for the Act and
15 Northern Territory through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as
16 they are not limited to constitutional provisions, however there never was any Constitutional
17 powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to any resident of a State, neither determine
18 citizenship of a citizen of a State!
19
20 If your Department nevertheless maintains that the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to
21 determine citizenship of residents of the State of Victoria then please do set out in which
22 Constitutional manner the Commonwealth had this power from on set, if any, and/or how it
23 obtained this legislative power since the formation of the Commonwealth!
24
25 If anything, the Department of justice ought to be well aware that unless it is done lawfully it is
26 ULTRA VIRES!
27 END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
28
29 No further reply was received by me upon this.
30
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
34 come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
35 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
36 such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
37 Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
38 but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
39 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
40 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
41 meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to
42 say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is
43 the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we
44 introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and
45 those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision,
46 and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore,
32
1 it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
2 possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
3 exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
4 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
5 want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may
6 be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
7 argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
8 Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
9 of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
11 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
12 rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
13 citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
14 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
15 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
16 and so on.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 The term “citizenship” was not at all associated with “nationality” but rather covered any
20 “subject of the Queen” residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent
21 Australia.
22
23 The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”, “Commonwealth
24 citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing by the Framers of
25 the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to “nationality” but in regard of
26 citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the Commonwealth of Australia.
27 Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that the term “Australian
28 citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be an “Australian
29 nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a declaration as the proper
30 powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section 128 of the Constitution.
31
32 13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen
33 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
35 Re; dual citizenship
36 26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
37 29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
38 30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
41 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
33
1 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship

3 Re; Commonwealth citizenship
7 28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
8 Re; Commonwealth citizens
13 Re; federal citizenship
29
30 Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a
33 case which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony
34 from acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under
35 adverse conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that
36 state. The state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or
37 anything else-and I am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the
38 particular administration of its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the
39 exercise of its power and the administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there
40 is to be a clause introduced, to have the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one
41 modification, omitting the words-"and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen."
42 That would re-open the whole question as to whether an alien, not admitted to the
43 citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions with regard to immigration, is
44 prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to enter it under certain
34
1 conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of the

2 Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should confine
3 the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens of
4 the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment
5 suggested by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 What was shown was that the Victorian government also had seemingly gone along to confuse
9 Australian citizenship with state citizenship! And that is the real problem. Somehow everyone,
10 other than me, seems to have lost reality as to what is applicable.
11 Likewise, other States seemed to have gone along, despite constitutionally the purported
12 “Australian citizenship” could never substitute the constitutional powers of the states to legislate
13 for State citizenship. No State citizenship then no Commonwealth citizenship and so no electoral
14 rights either! Yet, even this basic issue still seems to remain unresolved! Still, Section 245 of the
15 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 cannot be enforced unless the CDPP can show to the Court
16 that somehow I did obtain “State citizenship” (political rights) and so invoked Section 41 of the
17 Constitution to obtain electoral rights in “Commonwealth citizenship”.
18
19 Some of the above has been quoted from AEC v Schorel-Hlavka 19 July 2006 (in which I
20 represented myself) successful appeals that also involved all 9 Attorney-Generals and none of
21 them challenged any part of this 409 pages written submissions named ADDRESS TO THE
22 COURT, Part 2 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 and therefor
23 is now beyond dispute that I was correct. In these legal matters which also involved a NOTICE
24 OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER.
25
26
27 It also should be understood that the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the
28 Commonwealth legislative powers as to conservation and also as to “civil rights”.
29
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
33 are intimately allied to this question.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE Mr. WISE:
38 The power of the senate to deal with money bills is so clearly defined that I doubt if any
39 ingenuity could suggest the possibility of dispute arising between the two houses on that
40 question. That at once removes one of the most prolific sources of dispute between the two
41 chambers in the past. Then as to the second class of dispute arising from social differences,
42 all through this discussion, not, I admit, in this house but outside, the controversialists of
43 one party ignore, or seem to ignore, the limitations of federal government. They forget
44 that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted
45 to its jurisdiction; and excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil
35
1 rights, all matters that affect property, all matters, in a word, affecting the two great
2 objects which stir the passions and affect the interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I
3 shall be glad if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-to perceive in this bill
4 any question on which there is any possibility of a conflict between the states and the
5 people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In
6 legislation affecting commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine
7 that the states will be brought into conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the
8 populations of the two large states over a question of trade. It is possible to imagine the
9 same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of finance.
10 END QUOTE
11
12 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
13 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
15 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
16 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
17 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
18 and secure to him.
19 END QUOTE
20
22 QUOTE
23 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
24
25 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
26 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
27 Parliament will be a sentry.
28 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
29 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
30 END QUOTE
31
33 QUOTE
34 Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the
35 rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are.
36 END QUOTE
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
41 but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
42 END QUOTE
43
44 It must therefore be very clear, at least in my view, that Anthony Albanese, Mark Dreyfus and
45 other ministers and their predecessors involved in purportedly giving the WHO powers as to
46 health, environment, etc, is unconstitutional and amount to TREASON and each and everyone of
47 them by this automatically by the provisions of S44 of the constitution lost their seats in the
36
1 Parliament and/or subsequently couldn’t remain in any Ministerial portfolio, etc. While the High
2 Court of Australia in Sue v Hill purported that Heather Hill was not legally entitled to be a Senator,
3 in real constitutional terms she was one of the view who actually was legally entitled to be a
4 Member of Parliament and the High Court of Australia being “part” of the constitution had
5 absolutely no judicial powers to undermine/override constitutional legal principles.
6
7 In the Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners case it is clear that some “oath of
8 alliance” was required. Now, if there was some change of “oath of alliance” because of purportedly
9 the Commonwealth of Australia having become INDEPENDENT then at what time was the “oath
10 of alliance” taken by lawyers to practice at the Victorian Bar valid? And, when did lawyers already
11 have taken this “oath of alliance” to the British Monarch then make a new “oath of alliance” to
12 the purported “Queen of Australia”? Or is it that we have lawyers (including judicial officers)
13 where some have sworn an “oath of alliance” to the LEGAL FICTION of Queen of Australia
14 while others to the British monarch?
15 In my view effectively this means that no person can be a judge/judicial officer, lawyer, elector,
16 Member of Parliament, police officer, etc, unless this person is a “Subject of the British Crown”.
17
18 Again, as neither the Commonwealth nor any of the 9 Attorney-Generals opposed my “written
19 submissions” then by this they are deemed to have conceded to my submissions to have been
20 correct.
21
22 The law of merger or res judicata in the strict sense:
23
24 In Caddy and Miller (1986) FLC 91-720 the Full Family Court identified an important
25 public policy issue and defined (“a matter decided”) res judicata estoppel at 75,233: “The
26 rule as to res judicata comes into operation whenever a party attempts in a second
27 proceeding to litigate a cause of action which has merged into judgment in a prior
28 proceeding.” The doctrine [of the rule of estoppel by res judicata [at 7]] “…reflects the
29 general interest of the community in the termination of disputes and in the finality (relieve
30 parties of the costs, devastavit of estates by parties (or their privies) and vexation of
31 multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent decisions,
32 encourage reliance on adjudication[6]) and conclusiveness of judicial decisions, together
33 with the right of the individual litigant to be protected from multiple suits for the same
34 cause. It is part of the common law, and parties (or their privies) who go to a court to effect
35 a resolution of a dispute are bound by its operation and consequences.” “A judgment
36 which purports finally to determine rights is none the less effective for the purposes of
37 creating an estoppel…” Cf. Halsbury’s Laws of England (2nd Edn.) Vol. 13, p. 403.
38
39 “…that law includes the rule that a party is precluded from
40 adducing evidence in a case the object or effect of which is to
41 dispute against another party the correctness or merits of an
42 earlier decision in proceedings between the same parties (or
37
1 their privies) disposing of the same cause. Nor will an earlier

2 decision be treated as wanting in finality if its incompleteness
3 results from a party’s failure to put forward his whole case
4 when he had the opportunity to do so (as the wife may have
5 failed in this case to have the Californian Court [N.B. Mrs Rushton’s
6 (2014) wives’ overseas Disneyland Holiday] make a determination in respect of the
7 Landvest Pty. Ltd. shares).” Cf. Cabb v Cabb [2013] FamCA 572 at [6–12]. The High
8 Court of Australia decided that ‘…the rules as to res judicata lay it down that, in
9 general, if the parties (or their privies) either do not explore or unsuccessfully explore
10 those avenues, they cannot subsequently challenge the final decision, whatever it
11 might be, in any other proceedings whatsoever in any judicial tribunal at all.’ Cf.
12 Rola Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth (1944) 69 C.L.R. 185.
13
14 “First, where a cause of action, or “the very right … claimed“, has previously been
15 established by a local court then at common law the “merger of the right or obligation in
16 the judgment” can be relied upon to preclude re-assertion of the extinguished right. The
17 doctrine of merger is not merely based upon principles of finality. It exists because when a
18 court order “replicates” the prior right, with added consequences such as enforcement
19 mechanisms, the prior right “has no longer an independent existence”. No action can be
20 brought upon that extinguished right. The successful plaintiff’s only right is a right on the
21 local judgment, which is “of a higher nature”. Since the expression “res judicata” has
22 also been loosely used to describe all four rules discussed below, each of which is
23 underpinned by a policy of finality, the effect of the doctrine of merger is sometimes
24 described as “res judicata in the strict sense“.” Cf. King v Hoare (1844) 13 M & W 494
25 at 504;[Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44 at [66–67]].
26
27 It may appear that in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I threw everything including the kitchen sink into
28 the 409 pages “written submissions” but then again each and every Attorney-General including
29 the Commonwealth could have opposed certain parts they may have disagree with, failing to do
30 so is their decision and cannot now be altered.
31 The gross incompetence may be underlines where even so the High Court of Australia in the
32 income taxation case made clear that once the Commonwealth legislated as to income tax then the
33 States had to retire from this, we find that even so the Commonwealth commenced to legislate on
34 11 November 1910 as to land taxation the States/Territories nevertheless continue to legislate and
35 fraudulently charge citizens for council rates and other land taxes to which they lack any
36 constitutional powers. And then politicians will claim they act in the best interest of Australians,
37 what a baloney!
38
39 As for the murderous “covid scam” that still appears to me to be pursued by the current federal
40 government and its collaborators:
41

38
1 In British Medical Association v The Commonwealth [1949] HCA 44; 79 CLR 201 at
2 [p293] Webb J observed: “To
require a person to do something
3 which he may lawfully decline to do but only at the
4 sacrifice of the whole or a substantial part of the means
5 of his livelihood would, I think, be to subject him to
6 practical compulsion amounting to conscription
7 [unlawful impressment and press-ganging by force]… If
8 Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal
9 means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a
10 situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of
11 one, in which the individual is left no real choice [of
12 abstention] but compliance. ” Cf. The Commonwealth of Australia
13 Constitution Act, 1900 [63 & 64 Vict.] (Imp.), Sect. 51 – (xxiiiA.) The provision of
14 maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment,
15 pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as
16 to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.
17
18 Magna Carta 1297 (25 Edw I c 29) (Imp., NSW, ACT), c. 29 “No freeman shall be taken
19 or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or
20 exiled or in any other wise destroyed; nor will We pass upon him nor condemn him, but by
21 lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, and we will
22 not deny or defer to any man, either justice or right. We, ratifying and approving these
23 gifts and grants aforesaid, confirm and make strong all the same for us and our heirs
24 perpetually, and by the tenor of these presents do renew the same: willing and granting for
25 us and our heirs that this Charter and all and singular its articles for ever shall be
26 steadfastly, firmly and inviolably observed.” Cf. Why Magna Carta Still Matters [2015] by
27 Steven Rares J, FCA at [13, 24–27], President of the Judicial Conference of Australia;
28 IVAN JOSIP LUKATELA v JOHN ARTHUR BIRCH [2008] ACTSC 99 at [3-6], Magna
29 Carta, c. 29; Human Rights.
30
31 Universal Jurisdiction Legislation:
32
33 Customary International Law of Armed Conflict (L.O.A.C.) Armistice and Sect. 43 of
34 the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) with no statute of limitations for the ‘institution of proceedings
35 in respect of offence’ under Sect. 13.
36 Principles of International Law Recognized in the (London) Charter of the Nüremberg
37 Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, adopted by the International Law
38 Commission, 1950. Nüremberg Principles for International Crimes against peace, War
39
1 crimes and Crimes against humanity.

2 International Criminal Court Act 2002 (Cth) (ICC Act) ~ Rome Statute of the
3 International Criminal Court, Art. 6, 7, 8. Genocide ~ 18 U.S. Code
4 § 1091, Punishment for violations: Death,
5
6 My wife was in a sense lucky that during the “covid scam” mandates she had me so to say as the
7 rock of Gibraltar but how many other Australians regardless of their racial background were left
8 to suffer harm and even die? How many died in care facilities denied in their last days or even
9 hours their needed family contact? And obviously we have the same murderous politicians and
10 their collaborators to assure us they really value every life, well perhaps they should state they
11 value every life they can terminate for the greater good of the New World Order!
12
13 What real concern did they have and show it for native born children to be deported as
14 stateless sending them into a life of misery?
15
16 So here we have Banyule City Council and others like it all concerned about the “feelings” of
17 Australians of Aboriginal descent but have done nothing, at least to my knowledge, to be there to
18 provide for the Australian native children that were deported as “stateless”. Well, I challenge them
19 all to prove they actually do care and without any delay will pursue the return of each and every
20 Australian native born child that was deported as “stateless” to have them returned to their country
21 of birth regardless of which race they may belong to! Any failure means we have them being
22 “racist” in the true meaning of the word, as they side with a particular race and couldn’t care less
23 about innocent children being placed in harms’ way because well they are not of a particular race!
24
25 And, I wonder why on earth none of the lawyers involved did manage to ensure that those
26 Australian native children were not deported as “stateless”? Did those lawyers have a clue what
27 really constitutionally was applicable and submitted to the court what I have set out above?
28 I doubt it.
29
30 Let it be clear, I came to Australia upon invitation by the then Federal government and I neither
31 any of my children own many obligation to somehow apologize for whatever eventuated hundreds
32 of years ago without my personal involvement. For the better or worse, since then Aboriginals
33 enjoyed the prosperity that followed since non-Aboriginals entered what is now known as the
34 Commonwealth of Australia being by the Greeks, Chinese or other races many thousands of years
35 ago and subsequently by the Dutch. One cannot dispute the validity of the Commonwealth of
36 Australia constitution while at the same time demanding to reap the benefits of it.
37 Unlike most politicians who are pushing their rot pretending to care, I actually decided to do my
38 own constitutional research and like the Framers of the Constitution oppose any racial
39 discrimination. It should be understood that at the time of the federation it were the
40 colonies/province that were having race laws enacted and applicable. The Commonwealth merely
41 provided for it to become federal and by this technically wiped out the States former legislation
42 when the Commonwealth commenced to invoke Ss51(xxvi). There are too many wannabee’s
43 pretending to be constitutional lawyers/judges/politicians, etc, who in my view haven’t got a clue
44 as to what really the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the
40
1 constitution is about. They are frothing from their mouths utter and sheer nonsense to divide
2 Australians for political or other gains while pretending they care.
3
4 I deplore what I view to be Banyule City Council racism and so of others.
5
6 If politicians and their collaborators desire to pursue racism then well I will not prevent them to
7 more to some country where they can pursue racism to their desire but while in the Commonwealth
8 of Australia they should observe equality for all Australians.
9
10
11
12
13 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
14
15 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
16 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
17 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

18 (Our name is our motto!)


20230611-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 96-Naturalization Vs Nationality by Native Birth, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20230611-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 96-Naturalization Vs Nationality by Native Birth, Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20230611-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To R Kershaw Chief Commissioner of AFP-Suppl 96-Naturalization Vs Nationality by Native Birth, Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

1 the people themselves to resent and reverse what may be

1 system of responsible government-and I may mention incidentally that in New Zealand

11-6-2023 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-6-2023 Page 8 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?

1 Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

1 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.

11-6-2023 Page 11 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 to another. There ought to be no possibility of any state imposing a disqualification on a

11-6-2023 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.

11-6-2023 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

11-6-2023 Page 23 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.

11-6-2023 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a

1 15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship

1 conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a citizen of the

1 their privies) disposing of the same cause. Nor will an earlier

11-6-2023 Page 37 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 crimes and Crimes against humanity.

17 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

11-6-2023 Page 40 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like