20140224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To JSCEM

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Hon Mr Tony Smith MP Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
24-2-2014
5 PO Box 6021 PARLIAMENT HOUSE ACT 2600

em@aph.gov.au
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 10 This document is not intended and neither must be deemed to be restricted for publication Sir, in my view the debacle of the WA Senate election could have been avoided had the JSCEM given appropriate consideration to my past submissions to the JSCEM, in which 15 I urged that the Australian Electoral Commission conducts elections, but not the supervision of elections ,as there is a conflict of interest with this. .Indeed, in Federal, State and even council elections I found that whichever electoral commission was conducting elections there always were problems and lodging a complaint was to so to say complain to Dracula that he is sucking the blood from his victim. One simply 20 requires an independent arbitrator to oversee the conduct of the AEC. I did not stand this time as a candidate, having stood as an INDEPENDENT candidate for some 16 years, because during a last council election a person making known to be a committee member of the Liberal Party, (while I was campaigning in that election as a 25 candidate) gave me the understanding that he knew everything about me, and that I was wasting my time as a group was set up that included judges and lawyers to avoid me being successful. I had absolutely no doubt from his comments that indeed he knew details about me not ordinary in the public domain and didnt doubt he was fair dinkum in his comments that such group existed. 30 Obviously, to the JSCEM this might be a mere hearsay and surely one needs some concrete evidence. Well, the AEC itself in regard of the 2001 federal election misled the JSCVEM about my legal dispute with it. 35 On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the JSCEM (represented through the DPP) on both appeals in the County Court of Victoria during which litigation I had served upon all Attorney-Generals a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS not as single Attorney-General challenged any of my numerous submissions. Hence on this legal basis the Commonwealth of Australia (including the AEC) never again can litigate against me on any 40 issues I raised in those appeals.
p1 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
The litigation was about charged against me for FAILING TO VOTE in the 2001 and 2004 5 federal elections. I had been a candidate in elections. While I voted in the 2013 federal Election (In fact the Returning officer Mr King himself was surprised to see me to vote) as I make it very clear I am not against voting but as I did set out
to the Court I was against compulsory voting as a self-educated CONSTITUTIONALIST, I am aware that in April 1891 the Delegated to the Constitution Convention (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) debated if it should or should not provide the Commonwealth of Australia with legislative powers to make registration and 5 voting compulsory. The delegates didnt accept this was appropriate. This even so as I understand it postal voting already then existed!
Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. GORDON: I move: To strike out the words: "or it person qualified to become such elector." I do this for three reasons Mr. REID: Give us one.
10
15
Mr. GORDON: One is that everyone born in the Commonwealth is qualified to become an elector. HON. MEMBERS: Do not make a speech Mr. GORDON: My chief point is that I think that registration should be made compulsory. I would not give a man who has lived here for three years without registration a vote. Mr. PEACOCK: His name might have dropped off accidentally.
20
Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may have been away for a trip. Mr. REID: Withdraw. (Laughter.) Mr. GORDON: I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment withdrawn. END QUOTE
25 The mere fact that the Delegate held that compulsory registration (and so voting) was not permissible for the commonwealth to legislate for unless it was provided for in the constitution may underlines that failing such an amendment to authorise compulsory voting then any legislation compelling compulsory registration/voting is unconstitutional 30 One has to then question why did the AEC and the DPP lawyers acting for the AEC conceal from the Parliament and the JSCEM this and other issues relevant to elections? Often politicians and even judges are looking at the history of the United Kingdom and then argue that we have a Westminster system and so what applied in the United Kingdom then also applies in the Commonwealth of Australia. How dead wrong they are! 35 And looking at precedents handed down prior to the Handsard records being allowed to be used (Tasmania Dam case finally allowed this) then all precents as such are to be reconsidered. In the United Kingdom Parliament has unlimited powers and so Ministers within the legislation whereas in the Commonwealth of Australia this is considerably different. 40 The United Kingdom for example has no such prohibition as exist in s116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion 5

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE I refer to the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL (VICT.); EX REL. BLACK v. THE COMMONWEALTH [1981]
10 HCA 2; (1981) 146 CLR 559 (2 February 1981) was wrongly decided!
In my view, Murphy J (dissenting judge) was correct. Wilson J stated at 42; QUOTE While on present authority it is not permissible to seek the meaning of s. 116 in the convention debates, END QUOTE
15
That was in 1981. But since then we have; 20

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. END QUOTE Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) QUOTE
25
Constitutional interpretation 30
1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]: "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion." END QUOTE
35
40
45
Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) (Re-now- Section 96 of the Constitution) Mr. OCONNOR.-It is nicely wrapped up. Any one who reflects upon the conditions which must exist before this provision can be brought into operation will see that it assumes that the states must be reduced to a condition of pauperism before they can take advantage of it. Sir JOHN FORREST.-What would you do if they were?
50
Mr. OCONNOR.-I will come to that. Mr. Wise seems to be of opinion that there is some power implied in the Constitution to give such aid. Now, from the consideration and study which I have been able to give to the Constitution, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no such power p4 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
implied. The Constitution is formed for certain definite purposes. There are definite powers of legislation and definite powers of administration, and the clause that the Right Hon. Sir John Forrest called attention to just now-clause 81-expressly provides that the revenues of the Commonwealth shall form one consolidated fund, to be appropriated for the public services of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges provided in this Constitution. Mr. WISE-The order and good government of the Commonwealth would come under the term " public services of the Commonwealth." Mr. OCONNOR.-I do not agree with the honorable member in his interpretation of the powers of the Commonwealth, especially when dealing with the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. In such a case there will be a great deal of care taken to keep the nose of the Federal Parliament to the grindstone in the matter of this expenditure. I do not think any expenditure will be constitutional which travels outside these limits. We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it. If any Act were carried giving monetary assistance to any state it would be unconstitutional, and the object sought would not be attained. That brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that there should be any such power either expressed or implied. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a disastrous thing for the future of the [start page 1109] Commonwealth if there was any such power given.
10
15
20 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 20 January 1970 QUOTE 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. END QUOTE
25
30
Yet, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1915 Section 245 unconstitutionally provides for 35 religious exemption!
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Chapter 33 of the CD) Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?
40
Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
Tax deductions for religious schools and other religious entities are then also prohibited! AVERTMENT
Part XXIII Miscellaneous
45
Section 387 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

(i) section 326 or 327 of this Act or section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914; or
QUOTE
388 Averments deemed to be proved 5

In any prosecution in a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of a contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations relating to compulsory enrolment or compulsory voting, instituted by an officer or by any person acting under the direction of an officer, the averments of the prosecutor contained in the information or complaint shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
10 END QUOTE Before going into further details I will first refer to some other issues and then get back to the religious exemptions. This as the quotations of some of the submissions to the court are extensive, but of the total of submission before the court was only a fraction of it. 15 The fact that lawyers for the AEC are perverting the course of JUSTICE in attempts to pursue to succeed for the AEC no matter how they are misusing and abusing their positions to me is of grave concern. If the AEC desires to succeed in litigation even by perverting the course of JUSTICE then I view it is not a fit and proper entity to conduct or even being associated with elections. 20 AGAIN: Why did the AEC conceal from the JSCEM as to what transpired in the County Court of Victoria and that I comprehensively defeated the AEC? I do not propose to refer to all matters in this submission as I am well aware my effort to set out matters in considerable details often have been ignored. 25 In my view, where the WA Senate election has been declared void then all candidates which stood at the time should have their deposits refunded and also the payment per primary vote should be reclaimed. It is then for the relevant candidates to seek to sue the AEC for any loss they incurred. Albeit I have in past submissions to the JSCEM made clear I view the payment 30 per primary vote is unconstitutional. The fact that the Proclamation was not published until 9 October 2001 whereas the writs were issued on 8 October 2001 is also a matter the AEC concealed from the JSCEM, this even so in the litigation before the County court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 the AEC didnt challenge 35 my submissions that the writs for the 2001 federal elections were all invalid because of the failure to publish the Gazette before the writs were issued. I provided the Court with evidence obtained under FOI that proved the writs were sent out by the Government Printer on 9 October and on 10 October 2001 whereas the writs had been issued on 8 October 2001. As a matter of fact in the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 16 40 November 2005 counsel for the AEC filed a copy of the Gazette dated 8 October 2001 claiming it proved the proclamation was published, and then submitted to withdraw the same as evidence when I pointed out certain defect with this Special Gazette. And in the appeals I relied upon the same to succeed in the appeals for that also. The evidence obtained from the Commonwealth Gazette clearly dispute the date of S421 of 45 8 October 2001 being correct as it wasnt published until 22 October 2001 in Tasmania and so S421 ought to have been dated 22 October 2001 be held to be so for Tasmania. Reportedly the AEC commissioner is paid some $800.000.00 a year and cannot even manage to conduct proper elections! I could have done a better job for far less. 50 In my view the JSCEM ought to carefully read my submissions of 19 July 2006 and discover what I then exposed being wrong in the conduct by the AEC still has continued ever since. The Magna Carta provided for FREE ELECTIONS, which was without the force of arms. As the Magna Carta does apply to the Commonwealth of Australia (and even the US Supreme court held the Magna Carta still applies to the US Constitution) then the force of arms, such as
a Sheriff enforcing a fine for an alleged defaulter of a fine not to vote, I view is in conflict with the rights provided for in the Magna Carta.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE
10 And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves. END QUOTE
15
20 And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitutionthe Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
25
30
35
Political liberty is not as what some Parliament may dictate or permit. What political liberty stands for is that when a person exercises a certain right then and only then the person can be deemed to be compelled to follow certain rules applicable to the 40 exercise of such rights. For example, when a person exercise the right to drive a motor vehicle the person then is bound to act in accordance with road traffic regulations relevant to the usage of a motor vehicle. However, if the person remains at home than any legislation as to speed, etc, are totally irrelevant because they do not then apply to that person. Likewise, when a person exercises his/her rights to vote then the person can be compelled to 45 vote according to a certain procedure but if the person desires not to vote then the person cannot be compelled to act as if he./she votes. Further down in this submission I have also set out the issue desire as was before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006, and this was not challenged by the AEC either. 50 Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the p7 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
10
people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to the Federal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given the right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so. END QUOTE
.
Political liberty therefore is that an elector can opt to vote and be required to comply with the voting procedures governed by law or the elector can elect not to vote and that would be the end of the matter.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 20 January 1970 QUOTE 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. END QUOTE
15 Again:
20
25
30 Therefore, as long as there is a religious exemption then the entire part of compulsory registration/voting is an absurdity as it flies in the face of reasonable conduct. The scandalous conduct is that the AEC and so its lawyers conspired to pervert the course of JUSTICE time and time again to have innocent citizens convicted by concealing from the courts the true meaning and application of the constitution as well as relevant judicial 35 decisions.It must be very obvious that the AEC knew it had so to say hope in hell to defeat me and so embarked upon a path of gross deception upon the JSCEM, the government and the Parliament as well as the Governor-General and the Governors. I during the 2013 federal election did publish material setting out that an elector cannot be compelled to vote, even on the Facebook page of the AEC and at no time did the AEC seek to oppose my writings. 40 Obviously well aware that because I comprehensively defeated the AEC in court it has so to say no leg to stand upon. (Typing errors in the document have been included)
QUOTE Australian Electoral Commission info@aec.gov.au
45
Sir/Madam, I understand from your Facebook website details that Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. succeeded in his appeals against convictions of FAILING TO VOTE, on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of Victoria, and have quoted below details published on the AEC Website in relation to some of his submissions. I understand that the AEC didnt in any form or manner seek to oppose the numerous submissions in support of his appeals. I rely therefore, upon this information published on the AEC Facebook website, as my right to object to voting, and do urge you to respond with your acknowledgement of my constitutional and other legal rights to do so, irrespective if it are religious or non-religious beliefs. https://www.facebook.com/AustralianElectoralCommission/posts/510419275711079?comment_id=53976906&offse t=0&total_comments=1 p8 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
50
55
QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook Website On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC) in 2 appeals before the County Court of Victoria. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my ADDRESS TO THE COURT included the following, which was not challenged by the prosecution (nor any other about 50 constitutional issues I submitted to the court) QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT As shown below in greater extend the question of the Defendants religion itself would be an invasion as to his rights. Further, there is no requirement to state any particular religion as the matter in U.S. Supreme Court.
10
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354. 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356. 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link: Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
15
20
25
30
35
40 And;
45
50
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged. And
55
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law. And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.
10
15
What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned. END QUOTE Part 1 of 3 of the 19 July 2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT So on that basis, the Court could never convict me for FAILING TO VOTE, because the electoral act had an exclusion for religious objection and that means I was entitled to a non-religious objection also, as otherwise it is unconstitutional
20 Again:
QUOTE 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. END QUOTE Lets be clear about it that gthe lawyers involved acting for the AEC (Ausrtralian Electoral Commission) are perverting the course of justice for and onbehalf of the AEC when they are concealing the above stated from the court. . Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) QUOTE As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients...He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say 'All he honourably can' because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. END QUOTE
.
25
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
55 QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. END QUOTE
.
60 In my view, the AEC concealing this from the courts in every occasion they score a conviction proves
to be more like a debt collection agency then an impartial party conducting elections. Considering the hundreds of thousands of electors each time fines inappropriately by the AEC one may just ask, what is its purpose? Is it to hold fair and proper elections or to use elections to financially p10 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
shore up a government? Time will tell if the AEC does reveal the truth, but safe to say that its hand delivered document to homes, titled Your official guide to the 2013 federal election, claims that voting is compulsory, this I clearly disproved on 19 July 2006, and this document also fails to set out that any person having a non-religious objection then likewise as with a religious objection doesnt have to vote. In my view, not just to the judges but also to the AEC and its lawyers the following should be applicable, as the Framers of the Constitution embedded as a legal principle in the Constitution! For the above, I view that anyone who object to voting, even on a non-religious ground for this also
10 should not be fined for FAILING TO VOTE, and I challenge the AEC to prove me wrong.! After all, I
am quoting from the ADDRESS TO THE COURT I have on 19 July 2006 before the court when I comprehensively defeated the Australian Electoral Commission! Again, it never even attempted to challenge my submissions whatsoever! END QUOTE (19-8-2013) Australian Electoral Commission Facebook Website I trust that the information obtained from your Facebook Website is correct, and you will (again) acknowledge this in your response to me. Were you decide not to acknowledge my rights and it would eventuate that you were to pursue to litigate againsgt me then I intend to infiorm the Court of this my correspondence and that I view you may seek to pervert the course of justice in seeking court orders adverse to my person. Elector in the electorate of, House of Representative: Senate: Name: Address: State/Territory: Email address: Signed Dated END QUOTE
15
20
25
30
(Again typing errors were left in the quotation) 35 I have clearly stood my position as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and the Court upheld both my appeals and as such I view the Commonwealth of Australia must uphold this. Because neither the constitution or the legislative provisions were enacted merely for my sake but relates to the general community then when I challenged the legislation being ULTRA VIRES then unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction ruled against it and declared 40 the legislation to be INTRA VIRES, the legislation and/or part(s) of the legislation subject to my objection(s) remains ULTRA VIRES and so without legal force. It is an absurdity that if the AEC can obtain a ruling in its favour then it applies to all electors but if a ruling is against the AEC then somehow it can disregard the ruling. 45 In my view the AEC conduct underlines that it disregard the rule of law and cannot conduct FAIR and PROPER elections.
.
One of the issues I raised in my defence was that as a candidate I couldn t be forced to vote for any of my opponents. After all, the very reason I stood as a candidate was because I held 50 none of the other candidates were of the calibre and trustworthy, etc, as I held they ought to be. So why on earth would I then vote for them? Just consider that a person A desire to apply for a job and so many others do. A is then asked to list which person should get the job and whomever received the most number of votes from the candidates would be the successful candidate. It would be deemed an absurdity 55 having to vote for other applicants. Why spend money and effort on applying for a job if you have to vote and perhaps your vote could land another applicant with the job? The same with elections. Why should a candidate standing on certain values, etc, vote for an opponent? And this I also placed before the court.,
I may add something else. I held that the AEC assumes certain people are not entitled to vote regardless if they are. For example I made a complaints against the AEC to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that the AEC failed to ensure that people held in detention centres were eligible and entitled to 5 vote or not. The Commonwealth Ombudsman promptly refused to investigate. Yet, some 3 years later when Mr John Howard requested the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate matter as to people held in detention then I understood it was discovered many persons lawfully in the Commonwealth of Australia were wrongly held in detention. Cornelia Rau is one of them and who can forget the poor woman Vivian Alvarez Solon left to 10 rot to die in a foreign country. Many others were , some several times, held captive in detention and the AEC simply assumed they all were unlawful in the commonwealth of Australia rather than to actually check if they were entitled to vote or not. As set out below also the AEC is not up to the job but manipulate the JSCEM as if it does a 15 good job. Hansard, Friday 16 August 2002, JSCEM (Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters); 20
QUOTE Senator ROBERT RAY I was not going to go to any of the referendum stuff. I just want to go briefly to electoral litigation. When someone seeks an injunction, do they have to indemnify the Electoral Commission for damages? Quite often, when you seek injunctive relief, you have to guarantee that this is going call cost to persons you are injuncting. Mr Becker- No.
25
Senator ROBERT RAY You dont have to? This has two sides to it, in fact. It sometimes inhibits injunctions if you have those penalties. On the other hand, it is somewhat fairer to the organization that is injuncted. But it does not apply to you; I did not know that.
30
Mr Dacey- No, Senator. END QUOTE
It would be unreasonable to include each and every issue in this submission but I view any fair dinkum committee member of the JSCEM should hold it offensive that the AEC has been 35 deliberately deceiving the JSCEM time and time again! It seems to me that the AEC simply takes the JSCEM as a set of fools who can be ongoing deceived as the JSCEM simply is not set up to deal with the AEC deception, and in the process a person like myself fails to have matters properly considered because the JSCEM hold more value and weight to the statements the AEC makes no matter how fraudulent they may be, then to 40 consider what the true facts are as submitted by a person. It should be clear that if my statement was in breach of law then the AEC could have applied for an injunction against me, but as the AEC knows that it is prohibited from ever again litigating the same issues against me and so likewise any Attorney-General where they 45 implied failed to challenge my material then I view it is well over due for the JSCEM to consider what I had at the time before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 and how this applies to elections, including the 2013 and future elections.
.
Due to the extensive material to set this out, and already having been the subject of successful 50 litigation by me and having been included in my book that was filed as evidence in my case for the 19 July 2006 hearing further extensive set out therefore can be located in CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC in my 6-7-2007 published book; INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really? A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
55
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 As the book was published 12 days prior to the 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria hearing there could have been no doubt that I admitted I had not voted. But that was simply 5 irrelevant because if one cannot be compelled to vote then if one voted or not is irrelevant.
.
I have also an issue with legislation that may refer to allowing a person to vote not residing in the Commonwealth of Australia and therefore under alliance of a foreign nation. No one can be permitted by law to vote in federal elections but by virtue of s41. Yet, we have that for 10 example a former Australian who gave up her Australian associated nationality to become a Dutch national then years later retained her Australian associated nationality even so she is not entitled to vote in State elections and so has no State franchise but can nevertheless vote in federal elections. Surely this unconstitutional conduct cannot be allowed to remain.
.
15 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament. Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not? Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
20
25
30
35
40
END QUOTE One only has to consider that Senator Ray (JSCEM 2002 transcript) asked the AEC if a 45 person challenging an election would have to pay cost and the AEC denied this, whereas in reality the AEC pursues cost. How on earth can the JSCEM trust the AEC when it openly perjure itself during JSCEM hearings? After all the JSCEM doesnt require a witness to take an oath but nevertheless they are bound by their statements. 50 As I understand it the AEC is not accountable to the minister (albeit this is unconstitutional) but has to report to the JSCEM, which in itself has no powers to punish JSCEM for failure to comply with legal procedures required by the Act. So, the AEC is so to say a law onto it selves and the JSCEM is so to say a toothless tiger!
Lets compare the time table the AEC furnished to the Prime Minister and which was then provided to the Governor-General/Governors versus the true and correct calculations of the time table. 5 Error! Use the Home tab to apply ShortT to the text that you want to appear here.
QUOTE 155 Date for close of Rolls
The date fixed for the close of the Rolls shall be 7 days after the date of the writ.
10 156 Date of nomination

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the date fixed for the nomination of the candidates shall not be less than 10 days nor more than 27 days after the date of the writ. (2) Where a candidate for an election dies, after being nominated and before 12 oclock noon on the day fixed by the writ as the date of nomination for the election, the day fixed as the date of nomination for the election shall, except for the purposes of section 157, be taken to be the day next succeeding the day so fixed.
157 Date of polling
15
The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the date of nomination.
20 158 Polling to be on a Saturday

The day fixed for the polling shall be a Saturday.
END QUOTE
Again 25 Error! Use the Home tab to apply ShortT to the text that you want to appear here.
QUOTE
The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the date of nomination.
END QUOTE
30 Therefore, where the date of (closure of) nomination was set for Thursday 15 August 2013 then the first day AFTER this date to commence counting is Friday 16 august 2013. Because it also requires shall not be less than 23 days then as per Authorities such as the High court of Australia the last day being the 23rd day cannot be used for a pol to be held. 35 Hence, the 24th day being Sunday 8 September 2013 was not a day for polling because the legislation requires The day fixed for the polling shall be a Saturday. Then the first available Saturday was 14 September 2013! Below I have explained it in more details, including Authorities, as was submitted to the County court of Victoria on 19 July 29006. As such one must be complete idiots/morons not 40 to be able to understand this set out. And as the AEC didnt challenge this either, as it didnt challenge anything, then I view the JSCEM ought to hold the AEC accountable for this disastrous rot it continues with where it should know better. What kind of intelligence requires a man being paid a reported $800,000.00 a year if he cant fathom simple calculations a 4th grade primary school student ought to comfortably being able to do on a 45 calendar.
In this case a proposed referendum was railroaded in the process. For sure I opposed the validity of the referendum on constitutional grounds but that is irrelevant to the issue that the electors were conned out of a proposed referendum because the AEC cant even use a calendar to work out dates. 5 We expect a child to mature to some extend when completing primary school in about 6 years and yet the AEC cannot even manage this single items in more than 12 years, as to properly calculate dated! I never had any formal education in the English language and neither was it my native language but surely even I can understand the concept of shall not be less. 10 Considering the number of people, including lawyers involved in the AEC and the lot cannot even together manage a simple calculation as to dates? Year after year, decade after decade! Their stupidity and arrogance, including of the lawyers, resulted to a lot of waste of taxpayers monies and yet they seem to be rewarded with promotions, etc, rather than to be held accountable for their stupidity. 15 http://australianpolitics.com/2013/08/04/federal-election-timetable.html QUOTE
2013 Federal Election Timetable

Aug 04, 2013 Leave a Comment 20 This is the official timetable of key dates for the 2013 Federal Election. The dates show the election is being conducted within the minimum timeframe whereby polling day must be no less than 33 days from the issue of the writ. As has been the practice in recent years, the writ will be issued within 24 hours of the election announcement. Event Date Explanation The Prime Minister visits the Governor-General and advises a dissolution of the House of Representatives. The GovernorGeneral is entitled to dissolve the House under Section 28 of the Constitution.
Announcement Sunday 4 of Election August 2013 Following vice-regal approval, the Prime Minister announces the election date to the public. Rudd did this via an email to ALP members and supporters within 10 minutes of leaving Government House.
Issue of Writ
Monday 5 August 2013 The writ is the official legal document that commands the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct the election in accordance with dates required by the Constitution and the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The writ must be issued within 10 days of the dissolution or expiration of the House of Representatives. At the same time as the Governor-General issues the writ for
On this day the current 43rd Parliament is prorogued, a legal act which has the effect of terminating all business before the House. A minute later the House is dissolved. Both these ceremonial acts are delegated to the Governor-Generals Official Secretary. A notice of dissolution is placed on the parliamentary doors.
the House of Representatives, State Governors are requested to issue writs for the half-Senate election in each state. Unlike the House, the Senate is not dissolved. The electoral rolls close seven days after the issue of the writ, in accordance with Section 155 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Close of Rolls Monday 12 Voters have one week after the issue of the election writ to August 2013 ensure that they are correctly enrolled. (8.00pm) New voters can enrol in this time and people who have changed residence can also notify the Australian Electoral Commission of their new address. Nominations for the election must close between 10 and 27 days after the issue of the writ, in accordance with Section Thursday 15 156 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. People intending to August 2013 stand as a candidate at the elections have until this date to submit their nomination forms. (Midday) Bulk nominations from political parties are submitted at an earlier time. Nominations must be publicly declared 24 hours after nominations close, in accordance with Section 176 of the Electoral Act.
Close of Nominations
Declaration of Nominations
Friday 16 August 2013 At each of the 150 divisional offices of the Australian (Midday) Electoral Commission, the nominations will be declared and the order of names on the ballot paper will be determined by a blind-folded ballot. Polling day must be between 23 and 31 days after the close of nominations, in accordance with Section 157 of the Electoral Act.
Polling Day
Saturday 7 September 2013 (8.00am- Pre-poll voting takes place at Electoral Commission offices prior to this date. Mobile polling booths also visit hospitals, 6.00pm) nursing homes, prisons and remote locations in order to make voting easier for people who may experience difficulty. The writs must be returned within 100 days of their issue, in Wednesday 13 accordance with Section 159 of the Electoral Act. This November timeframe allows divisional returning officers sufficient time 2013 to count all votes and, if necessary, conduct recounts No later than Friday 13 December 2013 Section 5 of the Constitution requires the new House to meet within 30 days of the return of the writs.
Return of Writs (latest date)
Meeting of Parliament
In practice, the House is likely to meet in late October or early November.
Filed Under: 2013 Federal Election, Election Timetable, House of Reps, Rudd Tagged With: 2013 Federal Election, election timetable END QUOTE
Further down this submission I have included quotes from the County Court of Victoria submissions regarding Authorities how time/days are to be calculated. As I understand it the writs issued had: 5 15 August 2013 closing nominations as such 23 days must be counted at conclusion of the 15 August and the poll cannot be held until the conclusion of the 23rd day. As such, it is not on the 23rd day! The following time table was forwarded to Mr Tony Abbott and Mr Clive Palmer on 16 October 2013 also. 10 Day 1 16 August 2013 Friday Day 2 17 August 2013 Saturday Day 3 18 August 2013 Sunday Day 4 19 August 2013 Monday Day 5 20 August 2013 Tuesday 15 Day 6 21 August 2013 Wednesday Day 7 22 August 2013 Thursday Day 8 23 August 2013 Friday Day 9 24 August 2013 Saturday Day 10 25 August 2013 Sunday 20 Day 11 26 August 2013 Monday Day 12 27 August 2013 Tuesday Day 13 28 August 2013 Wednesday Day 14 29 August 2013 Thursday Day 15 30 August 2013 Friday 25 Day 16 31 August 2013 Saturday Day 17 1 September 2013 Sunday Day 18 2 September 2013 Monday Day 19 3 September 2013 Tuesday Day 20 4 September 2013 Wednesday 30 Day 21 5 September 2013 Thursday Day 22 6 September 2013 Friday Day 23 7 September 2013 Saturday Day 24 8 September 2013 Sunday, after which the first Saturday can become polling day! Day 25 9 September 2013 Monday 35 Day 26 10 September 2013 Tuesday Day 27 11 September 2013 Wednesday Day 28 12 September 2013 Thursday Day 29 13 September 2013 Friday Day 30 14 September 2013 Saturday, first and last available polling date! 40 END QUOTE The error the AEC constantly and persistently hard headed is making is that it fails to accept that the 23rd day cannot be used for a poll to be held as the 23 are the minimum days between the issue of the writs and the day the actual poll is held. This despite court judgment as to how days are to be calculated and despite that it was comprehensively defeated by me on 19 July 2006 for 45 the same error in calculation. This is also why the supervision of how the AEC conduct elections should be in the hands of a supervisor not the AEC itself. The same with the 2001 Federal election:
QUOTE 2-11-2001 Affidavit of Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
50 34. I have spend considerable time researching the wording SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN and besides having a multitude of documentation setting out the difference of the meaning it is
also very obviously clear from cases such as Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balmford (1950) 81 CLR 161 that the SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN refers to the period of 10 days to commence at midnight of the day ending when the Writs were issued and completing at midnight on the 10th day. As such the Writs having been issued on the Monday the 8th day of 5 October 2001 then the following variations are applicable: Table A Day is 24 hours from midnight to midnight calculated. 1st day Tuesday 9th day of October 2001 nd 2 day Wednesday 10th day of October 2001 rd 3 day Thursday 11th day of October 2001 4th day Friday 12th day of October 2001 th 5 day Saturday 13th day of October 2001 6th day Sunday 14th day of October 2001 th 7 day Monday 15th day of October 2001 8th day Tuesday 16th day of October 2001 th 9 day Wednesday 17th day of October 2001 10th day Thursday 18th day of October 2001
10
15
1st day after Writs 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day 7th day 8th day 9th day 10th day
20
25
30
Table B Day is 24 hours from midnight to midnight calculated, excluding Sunday. 1st day Tuesday 9th day of October 2001 1st day after Writs 2nd day Wednesday 10th day of October 2001 2nd day rd th 3 day Thursday 11 day of October 2001 3rd day 4th day Friday 12th day of October 2001 4th day th th 5 day Saturday 13 day of October 2001 5th day 6th day Sunday 14th day of October 2001 th 7 day Monday 15th day of October 2001 6th day 8th day Tuesday 16th day of October 2001 7th day th th 9 day Wednesday 17 day of October 2001 8th day th th 10 day Thursday 18 day of October 2001 9th day 11th day Friday 19th day of October 2001 10th day 35. The difference with Table A and Table B lies upon the application of the CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162 combined with the CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162 (Many other Acts have the same interpretation) combined with the ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901. SECT 36 Reckoning of time (1) Where in an Act any period of time, dating from a given day, act, or event, is prescribed or allowed for any purpose, the time shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be reckoned exclusive of such day or of the day of such act or event. (2) Where the last day of any period prescribed or allowed by an Act for the doing of anything falls on a Saturday, on a Sunday or on a day which is a public holiday or a bank holiday in the place in which the thing is to be or may be done, the thing may be done on the first day following which is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday or bank holiday in that place. ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901
SECT 37 Expressions of time p18 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
35
40
45
50
Where in an Act any reference to time occurs, such time shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be deemed in each State or part of the Commonwealth to mean the standard or legal time in that State or part of the Commonwealth.
Australian Treaty Series 1987 No 9 DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CANBERRA Rule 12bis Computation of time limits
10
12bis.1 Periods expressed in years When a period is expressed as one year or a certain number of years, computation shall start on the day following the day on which the relevant event occurred, and the period shall expire in the relevant subsequent year in the month having the same name and on the day having the same number as the month and the day on which the said event occurred, provided that if the relevant subsequent month has no day with the same number the period shall expire on the last day of that month. 12bis.2 Periods expressed in months When a period is expressed as one month or a certain number of months, computation shall start on the day following the day on which the relevant event occurred, and the period shall expire in the relevant subsequent month on the day which has the same number as the day on which the said event occurred, provided that if the relevant subsequent month has no day with the same number the period shall expire on the last day of that month. 12bis.3 Periods expressed in days When a period is expressed as a certain number of days, computation shall start on the day following the day on which the relevant event occurred, and the period shall expire on the day on which the last day of the count has been reached.
15
20
25
Victorian Consolidated Legislation CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162

Computation of periods
30
162. Computation of periods Where, for the purposes of this Act, any limited period less than eight days from or after a date or event is appointed or allowed for giving a notice or doing any other act or thing or for the taking effect of any act or thing, Sunday, Saturday and any public or bank holiday throughout the State shall not be reckoned in the computation of that limited period. ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161
35
40
COURT High Court of Australia
45
5. In the present case the document served allowed "the period of fourteen days next ensuing after the second day of May" 1948. That period would expire
at midnight on 16th May 1948. The document purports to be "dated" 30th April, but it was served on 3rd May. A period of fourteen days from 30th April would expire at midnight on 14th May, but a period of fourteen days from 3rd May would not expire until midnight on 17th May. If, therefore, the words "date of the notice" in the Act mean the date which the document bears on its face, the minimum period which the Act requires to be allowed ran from 30th April and expired at midnight on 14th May, and the notice complies with the Act, because it allows up to midnight on 16th May. The wording in Section 157 of the Electoral Act 1918 makes it clear beyond doubt that the legislators intended to have the polling day on a Saturday and as such that isnt argued. However, in view that the office of the Australian Electoral Commission was closed on Sunday the 14th of October 2001 and I was then unable to obtain certain nomination forms from that office it ought to be accepted that the 10 days must exclude also the Sunday. It ought to be accepted that the Legislators had every intention to provide the constituents with an opportunity of 10 days to provide nominations. If then the office of the Australian Electoral Office is closed on the Sunday, as I discovered, and so prevents me to obtain documents to obtain nominations then I view the 10 days as referred to by the Act must be construed as in accordance with CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162 and must exclude the Sunday for counting of the days. Unlike in the Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balmford (1950) 81 CLR 161 case where the reference to the number of days was an issue that would be applicable throughout the years, with an election the SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10 DAYS is only occurring during election time and as such the Australian Electoral Commission had an ability to have its offices open or accept that indeed Section 36 is applicable to exclude the Sunday! I submit my view that the 10 days completed on Friday night the 19th day of October 2001, at midnight.
10
15
20
25
30 36. That I was advised, and so have noticed notifications in the newspapers, that the Australian Electoral Commission closed the nominations of candidates on Thursday the 18th day of October, 2001. This was well short of the SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10 DAYS as it was in effect during the 10th day of the excluded period and so after 9 days and 12 hours precisely, being 24 hours less then the minimum legislated requirement, as it denied the 12 35 hours of the 10th day as well as the 12 hours up till 12 noon on the nomination day. 37. That various legislations exist where the Sunday is excluded from calculating days, I can present further documentation at the hearing to support the matters argued. 40 38. That I was advised, and so attended, to a draw of the candidates numbers and allotment upon the ballot paper conducted shortly after 12 noon on Friday the 19th day of October 2001. This draw was to be held AFTER 24 hours of the closing of the nominations and so mistakenly held upon the incorrect closing of the nominations held on Thursday the 18th day of October, 2001 and the draw ought to have been held on the earliest on Monday the 22nd day of October, 2001 after 12 noon as Sunday is a day the Australian Electoral Offices are closed, after closing of nominations ought to have been held (Table B) on Saturday 12 noon 20th day of October, 2001. Even if Nominations had closed upon Table A then still the draw ought to have been held no earlier then Saturday the 20th day of October 2001. 39. That with the provisions of a polling day to be held not less then 23 days after the nomination day then I view the following is applicable: To continue using Table A:
45
50
10
15
20
25
10th day 11th day 12th day 13th day 14th day 15th day 16th day 17th day 18th day 19th day 20th day 21st day 22nd day 23rd day 24th day 25th day 26th day 27th day 28th day 29th day 30th day 31st day 32nd day 33rd day 34th day 35th day Pollingday
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Saturday
18th day of October 2001 19th day of October 2001 20th day of October 2001 21st day of October 2001 22nd day of October 2001 23rd day of October 2001 24th day of October 2001 25th day of October 2001 26th day of October 2001 27th day of October 2001 28th day of October 2001 29th day of October 2001 30th day of October 2001 31st day of October 2001 1st day of November 2001 2nd day of November 2001 3rd day of November 2001 4th day of November 2001 5th day of November 2001 6th day of November 2001 7th day of November 2001 8th day of November 2001 9th day of November 2001 10th day of November 2001 11th day of November 2001 12th day of November 2001 17th day of November 2001
10th day after Writs issue. Nomination day 1st day for polling day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day 7th day 8th day 9th day 10th day 11th day 12th day 13th day 14th day 15th day 16th day 17th day 18th day 19th day 20th day 21st day 22nd day 23rd day first day clear.
30
40. That by Table B excluding Sundays and Melbourne Cup Day the following applies; 11th day 12th day 13th day 14th day 15th day 16th day 17th day 18th day 19th day 20th day 21st day 22nd day 23rd day 24th day 25th day 26th day 27th day 28th day 29th day 30th day 31st day 32nd day Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 19th day of October 2001 20th day of October 2001 21st day of October 2001 22nd day of October 2001 23rd day of October 2001 24th day of October 2001 25th day of October 2001 26th day of October 2001 27th day of October 2001 28th day of October 2001 29th day of October 2001 30th day of October 2001 31st day of October 2001 1st day of November 2001 2nd day of November 2001 3rd day of November 2001 4th day of November 2001 5th day of November 2001 6th day of November 2001 7th day of November 2001 8th day of November 2001 9th day of November 2001 10th day after Writs Nomination day 1st day for polling day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day 7th day 8th day 9th day 10th day 11th day 12th day 13th day 15th day Melbourne Cup day 16th day 17th day 18th day
35
40
45
50
33rd day 34th day 35th day 36th day 37th day 38th day 39th day 40th day
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
10th day of November 2001 11th day of November 2001 12th day of November 2001 13th day of November 2001 14th day of November 2001 15th day of November 2001 16th day of November 2001 17th day of November 2001
19th day 20th day 21st day 22nd day 23rd day Clear for election to occur. Polling day
10
41. That using either Table A or Table B the earliest election date (polling day) could be held from the day of the Writs issued on the 8th day of October, 2001 being Saturday the 17th day of November, 2001.
That I requested personally for Mr M King, Divisional Returning Officer for me to be 15 provided with a list of all names of constituents in the electorate of Jagajaga this was declined. This has prevented me to conduct my electioneering in a manner, as I desired such as posting out notices etc. On Thursday the 1st day of November 2001, I received finally a Certified Copy of the Rolls, some 15 days later. With the delay, it would be sheer impossible to send out to all constituents or most of them any material. 20 END QUOTE 2-11-2001 Afidavit of Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka On 4 August 2005 I defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg that AVERMENT couldnt be used by the Commonwealth of Australia in a State court exercising federal jurisdiction, and in the end the magistrate ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia would have to file and serve all material it sought to rely upon. I had submitted to the court that the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Commonwealth of Australia couldnt interfere with the judicial processes of State Courts exercising federal jurisdiction and in fact this was underlined where the Victorian Parliament did legislate for the use of AVERMENT for the Commonwealth of Australia regarding oil rigs but not as to election issues. Council for the AEC then commented to the Magistrate that this would be truck load of documents and the Magistrate made clear that that was an issue the AEC had to sort out with the Defendant. Yet, for so far I am aware of the AEC concealed this from the Federal Parliament the Federal government as well as the JSCEM! One had to ask why? Moreover, they also concealed this time and time again in litigations since then in court cases against other electors and one has to ask why? If anything to me it underlines the AEC used inappropriate conduct to conceal relevant details from the courts and by this time and time again pervert the course of JUSTICE.
25
30
35
40
How many electors were ending up with criminal convictions because the AEC perverted the course of JUSTICE one should investigate! Indeed considering also what is set out below, this as the 2013 federal election if the legislated time table has any meaning then that election 45 could only have been held on 14 September 2013 and not 7 September 2013 as the writs continue to have an incorrect calculation, this, even so this was an issue before the County Court of Victoria on 19 July 2006 regarding the same problem with the 2001 and 2004 writs. As such the AEC so to say is a law upon itself. The mislead the Prime Minister and Governor/General/Governors as to the correct calculation 50 as to election time table and then seek to excuse itself for that it did not issue the writs.
Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates p22 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.If we make it read that it shall take place on the date of the proclamation by the Governor-General it will only take place when the Governor-General will take that action by publishing a proclamation. Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth. END QUOTE
Again;
will take that action by publishing a proclamation
It shows; Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth! This is embedded in the Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia, so the Federal 10 Parliament has no constitutional powers to interfere with this section what so ever. Hence, where there was no proclamation published on 8 October 2001 then the Parliament was never prorogued and the House of Representatives was never dissolved when it was ASSUMED it had been. As set out below there is no proper system governing procedures involved to set in train an 15 election process and to supervise this to occur in a proper manner, and hence the Australian electoral commissioner being both in supervisory capacity and conducting the election has a conflict of interest and as it appears to me willing to abuse the legal processes to ensure his unconstitutional and illegal elections will prevail. 20 It should be noted that the Framers of the Constitution did very much consider treaties, etc but restricted it to those powers otherwise provided for in the constitution to the Commonwealth, and no more. The following quotations are from submissions to the County Court of Australia on 19 July 25 2006 which were not challenged by the Commonwealth of Australia (AEC)
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
It is not the counter argument itself that the Defendant is worried about, but the deceptive conduct employed in the past by the lawyers acting for the Australian Electoral Commission in 30 their litigation to the extend as to deliberately replace words in what is claimed to be an Authority being quoted as to pretend to the Court that a judge made a certain ruling even so the ruling is a fraudulent version to deceive the Court. Such as Mr Peter Hanks QC did before the Federal Court of Australia and later again made a deceptive statement to the High Court of Australia. 35 For example, checking the transcript of the hearing, it is noted that Mr Peter Hanks QC in his argument in point 22 and 22.1 of the OUTLINE stated the following; QUOTE 40 22 In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule that not less than so many days refers to clear days unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention. END QUOTE His quotation is again false and misleading! 45 Mr Peter Hanks QC quoted of the judgment the following; QUOTE unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention END QUOTE 50 This ought to be; QUOTE unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention
END QUOTE Clearly, that is a gross deception. In legal terms there can be a significant difference in a case for the Court to deal with a statutory intention versus subject matter. Mr Peter Hanks QC stated to the Court (7 November 2001); The researches of counsel have been unable to find provisions using simular language (not less that or at least a number of days) where the language is as clear and specific as found in ss156(1) and 157.
10
Thousands upon thousands of Internet references can be found upon a search shall not be less than or shall not be less that. As such this statement by Mr. Peter Hanks QC for the Australian Electoral Commission was a fraudulent statement. Likewise other statement were 15 found by the defendant to be deceptive and/or misleading. We also have the fact that Counsel Mr peter Hanks QC argued the authority of the 20 ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161 What counsel did however was to make a false and misleading presentation of what the case really was on about. As the authority stated: The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position. Mr Peter Hank QC didnt argue that the authority wasnt relevant, to the contrary he argued its 30 relevance only by misrepresenting how it applied and what the authority really was on about. As such, it had nothing to do with within as Mr Peter Hanks QC argued as clearly the usage within was in a different context and not at all as Mr Hanks sought to imply and did imply. It ought to be considered a serious matter that a barrister employs these kind of tactics, indeed 35 deceptive tactics, but it seems the Australian Electoral Commissioner does not seem to worry about the means as long as it achieves his end results. Because I expect the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to come up with any nonsense and unable to verify the correctness of any claims they may make about any AUTHORITY they may refer to I am left no alternative but to present my own research. 40 Lawyers are OFFICERS OF THE COURT but I experienced that when it comes to the Australian Electoral Commissioner being the instructing party then it seems to me from experiences their oath of alliance is worthless and they cannot be trusted, as set out also further in this ADDRESS TO THE COURT. 45 It is my view, that had Mr Peter Hanks QC not concealed matters and not presented fraudulent Authorities and how they applied then the Federal Court of Australia would not have ruled that it had no legal jurisdiction, and would in fact have granted the orders I sought. And in the end this case would never have eventuated before this Court as then matters could have been addressed appropriately before any federal election had been held! 50 I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) religious objection but includes also any secular belief objection. 55 If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being theistic belief then it would be unconstitutional.
25
QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006 5 C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001 Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc T01567737 & Q01897630 10 AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Re; religious objection (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections. 15 Madam, As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate that while using the religious objection referred to in subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection only to an theistic belief based religious objection but in fact it also includes any secular 20 belief based religious objection, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for an objection. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only theistic belief based religious objections. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical so urce of religious objection have a valid objection. 25 Neither do I accept that a person making an religious objection requires to state his/her religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a religious objection as the mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a religious objection. Therefore, the wording religious objection is to be taken as objection without the word religion having any special meaning in that regard. 30 If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot! I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard. Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA
END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
35 END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
The Defendant submits, that albeit the Defendant is not required to give any evidence as to the precise grounds of religious objection nevertheless some details have been set out which indicate 40 that the Defendant for many years had such religious objections. No duty was upon the Defendant to specifically refer to this to the Australian Electoral Commission when it questioned about their alleged failure to vote, as all along the Defendant contested the validity of the Australian Electoral Commission to do so where the Defendant all along had his constitutional based objections on foot against the elections being held. Considering other matters set out 45 extensively the issue of if the Defendant voted and if not why not is not relevant unless and until first all constitutional based objections have been appropriately dealt with. If for example the Courts were to declare that indeed section 245 of the CEA1918 is beyond constitutional powers then it was so ab initio and it then is clearly for this also not relevant if the Defendant did or didnt vote, and if he did not vote why not as there is no legislation applicable for this. Indeed, 50 the Defendant in his correspondence to the Australian Electoral Commission made known that Fact sheet 17, that was provided by the Australian Electoral Commission about various court decisions (authorities) regarding VOTING that none of them were deemed by the Defendant to be relevant as they did not reflect the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F.C. 88/018 END QUOTE 5

"The election is either valid or invalid. If invalid, the reason of the invalidity is not material so far as regards its consequences. We think it follows that, upon the avoidance of the election itself by the Court of Disputed Returns, the case is to be treated for all purposes, so far as regards the mode of filling the vacancy, as if the first election had never been completed, unless there is something in the HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" Constitution to lead to a contrary conclusion."
10
15
END QUOTE The following details were shown on the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION released computer records of the Commonwealth of Australia as to copies of the Gazette having been transferred, 20 after printing. 11/03/02 GO BOI 53/2 11/10/01 GO SGAZ421 . 9/10/01 GO CAS0153391 25 9/10/01 GO ICN0910ADL 9/10/01 GO ICN1076CAN 9/10/01 GO ICN0907MEL 9/10/01 GO ICN0886PER 9/10/01 GO ICN0881TOV 30 8/10/01 GO FGS0153363 8/10/01 GO FGS0153363 GAZETTES Subs Issue Trf to CA ICN to AD ICN to CA ICN to ME ICN to PE ICN to TH CANPRINT CANPRINT Wr-Off Adj Dist Transfr Transfr Transfr Transfr Transfr Transfr PO-Fins Receipt 20 -6 -2 -1 -3 -1 -1 -1 35 35 0.20 -0.06 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.35 0.35 MGIRVAN HEMSAN BMO5IAI DCRANE DCRANE DCRANE DCRANE DCRANE GHANNA GHANNA
CA AD CA ME PE TN
ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ ZZ
While 35 copies of the Special Gazette S421 was requested to be printed and the computer records show they were on 8 October 2001, it also shows that not until 9 October 2001 first 2 35 copies and later a further 3 copies had been transferred to Canberra (CA) As such the Proclamation was not published until at the earliest 9 October 2001, and therefore in regard of all writs governing the House of Representatives and the Senate sets for the territories there were no vacancies when the writs were issued on 8 October 2001. 40 Despite a request by the Defendant in his 19 September 2002 correspondence, for example, to the Australian Electoral Commission as to provide certain details to prove the validity of the elections basically little had been forthcoming and no evidence at all as to the Proclamation in fact having been published on 8 October 2001! To the contrary, evidence provided proves that not until 9 October 2001 the proclamation was published in Canberra and on later dates in States 45 and Territories. As such, where the writs were for this also defective then none of the members of the House of Representatives were validly elected and neither the Senators for Territories. IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F.C. 88/018 QUOTE 50
The return does not meet the exigency of the writ (Drinkwater v. Deakin, at p 638) because Senator Wood was incapable of filling the 12th place. That is not to say that, putting to one side "a mere abuse of the right of nomination or an obvious unreality" (Harford v. Linskey (1899) 1 QB
10
15
852, at p 862 and cf. Pritchard v. Mayor, &c. of Bangor (1888) 13 App Cas 241), the Electoral Officer who makes a return has authority himself to determine the qualifications of a candidate (who declares and maintains that he is duly qualified: HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s170.html" s.170 (a)(ii) of HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Act ) or to refuse to return the name of an otherwise successful candidate whose qualifications are in issue: see HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s172.html" s.172 of HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Act and Evans v. Thomas (1962) 2 QB 350. But the performance by the Electoral Officer of his ministerial functions in these respects does not determine the validity of the return or the efficacy of the election of an unqualified person to a vacant place in the Senate.
END QUOTE 20 Clearly, the declaration by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission itself did not purportedly validate the election and neither any candidate declared elected where there was no valid election. Where then Mr John Howard was not elected in 2001, so neither others, then he neither could 25 have been Prime minister for any longer then 3 Months, as Section 64 limits the appointment of a non elected person to no longer then a period of three months. Hence, Mr John Howard was neither then Prime Minister to advise the Governor-General for a general election in 2004! Indeed, neither was Mr John Howard in any legal position to be 30 involved in the appointment of the Governor-General Michael Jeffrey and as such that also the appointment also is unconstitutional and invalid (without legal force- ULTRA VIRES). THE DEFENDANT SUBMITS, THAT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT OR A CARE TAKING GOVERNMENT IN OFFICE THE COUNTRY GRINDS TO A HOLD. Where 35 there was no valid government since November 2001 then neither was there any authority for the Australian Electoral Commission to pursue the Defendant as to alleged breaches of law, and the Commonwealth of Public Prosecutions (Prosecutor) neither for this could have legal authority to pursue the Defendant regarding the alleged FAILING TO VOTE in the purported 2001 Federal election and the purported 2004 Federal election. 40 As the Senate elections also were ULTRA VIRES, because the writs had not been issued according to relevant legislative provisions, then when half of the senators retired in 2002 there were no duly elected replacements for them. Further, when the half of the Senate that retained their seat in 2002 retired in 2005 then not a single Senator was left in the Senate as none had been duly elected. All Bills passed since 2001 are for this also NULL AND VOID and without 45 legal force.
END QUOTE ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 QUOTE 19-7-2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT -County Court of Victoria
Where and how can the validity of a Proclamation be challenged? 50

A Proclamation, within the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 clearly does not fall within the meaning of electoral matter and as such neither an Issue that can be pursued before the Court of Disputed Returns. A Writ is an electoral matter when issued. However, if the writ was defective then the writ never had any legal force and likewise never could invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns but remained for p27 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
all purposes a matter to be resolved by a Federal Court operating as a Court of Law not sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns.
The following as advertised by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission on its website; 5 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 The following relevant provisions on electoral advertising in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, are extracted for the convenience of readers. The extracted law is current from 15 October 2001. In some instances, emphasis has been added to keywords of particular relevance. 10 Interpretation 4 (1) In this Act unless the contrary intention appears: ..."electoral matter" means matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in an election... (9) Without limiting the generality of the definition of "electoral matter" in subsection (1), matter shall be taken to be intended or likely to affect voting in an election if it contains an express or implicit reference to, or comment on: a. the election; b. the Government, the Opposition, a pre vious Government or a previous Opposition; c. the Government or Opposition, or a pre vious Government or Opposition, of a State or Territory; d. a member or former member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State or of the legislature of a Territory; e. a political party, a branch or division of a political party or a candidate or group of candidates in the election; or f. an issue submitted to, or otherwise before, the electors in connection with the election. Interpretation
322. In this Part, "relevant period", in relation to an election under this Act, means the period commencing on the issue of the writ for the election and expiring at the latest time on polling day at which an elector in Australia could enter a polling booth for the purpose of casting a vote in the election. NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201.
15
20
25
30
35 18. No attack is made in these submissions on the validity or effectiveness of the proclamation of the double dissolution. It is submitted, and in my opinion correctly submitted, in this connexion that the power simultaneously to dissolve both Houses of the Parliament and the power subsequently to convene a joint sitting are statutory and not prerogative powers. The validity of the proclamation convening the joint sitting is attacked but the submissions to which I have so far referred do not depend on the suggested invalidity of the proclamation. (at p219)
40
Again; The validity of the proclamation convening the joint sitting is attacked but the submissions to which I have so far referred do not depend on the suggested invalidity of the proclamation. 5 This was a matter before the High Court of Australia, not sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, which underlines that to challenge the validity of a Proclamation is and remains before the High Court of Australia sitting as a High Court of Australia and not sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns. 10 This ought to be obvious as the act to prorogue the Parliament and to Dissolve the House of Representatives are pre conditions to hold a general election but are not part of the election itself that is managed by the Australian Electoral Commission. Hence the ruling by Marshall J on 7 November 2001 that this was a matter for the Court of Disputed Returns clearly was an error in law. 15 The Australian Electoral Commissioner Mr Becker, in his sub147parti submission to the JSCEM on 16 August 2002 stated; The Schorel-Hlavka application on the calculation of the election timetable. On 2 November 2001, Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka applied to the Federal Court for an injunction under section 383 of the electoral Act to stop the election on the grounds that the date for the close of nominations was calculated incorrectly. Mr Schorel-Hlavka contended that the term not less than 10 days in subsection 156(1) of the electoral Act should be interpreted as meaning not less that 10 full periods of 24 hours. On this interpretation the meaning of subsection 156(1), the date set for the close of nominations would have been a day later than the one that was relied upon for the election. Mr Schorel-Hlavka argued that the cumulative effect of this alleged error was that polling day could not be on 10 November 2001, as proclaimed by the Governor-General on 8 October 2001. Mr Schorel-Hlavka submitted that polling day should have been on or after 17 November 2001. In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule that not less than so many days refers to clear days unless the context or the subject matter reveals a contrary intention. 35 Many an Appeal were dismissed because an appellant did not file within the time the Rules provided for. For example, where an Appellant filed an appeal before statutory an Appeal could be filed. Many other occasions the Court have made clear that time periods provided for are essential. In this case where there are certain constitutional and other legal provisions relevant to the conduct to publish a Proclamation, the issue of the writs and the time periods governing a 40 election process then where they are legislative provisions enacted as laws then a citizen is entitled to rely upon those provisions. Therefore if there is a failure to comply with the proper procedures to publish a Proclamation and/or writs showing the legally required time periods then the writs are defective and without legal force. 45 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445 The true version of the judgement under 5; That where an instrument prescribes that a period of time may elapse between one event and another, the words at least, not less than and not later than, unless the context or 50 the subject matter reveals contrary intention, should be regarded as indicating that a clear or full period of time must expire between the two events.
20
25
30
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998) Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in that case: "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or there 5 was not." Again; "substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or there was not." Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445 The true version of the judgement under 5; That where an instrument prescribes that a period of time may elapse between one event and another, the words at least, not less than and not later than, unless the context or the subject matter reveals contrary intention, should be regarded as indicating that a clear or full period of time must expire between the two events. There is some authority for saying that the use, in a statute prescribing a time limit, of such expressions as "at least" and "not less than" indicate an intention that the specified number of "clear days" must elapse between two acts or events (see R. v. Justices of Shropshire (1838) 8 Ad & E 173 (112 ER 803); Young v. Higgon (1840) 6 M & W 49 (151 ER 317); Chambers v. Smith (1843) 12 M & W 2 (152 ER 1085); In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885) 29 Ch D 204 and Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; 44 WN 43). But it is clear, I think, that significance is attached to such expressions as "at least" or "not less than" only in cases where the immediate purpose of the prescription of a time is to define a period on the expiration of which an act may be done, and not in cases where the immediate purpose is to define a period within which an act must be done. In the former class of case the prescribed number of days must elapse between two acts or events. In the latter class of case the act must (unless a contrary intention appears) be done before the expiration of the last of the prescribed number of days (see, e.g. Radcliffe v. Bartholomew (1892) 1 QB 161 and Armstrong v. Great Southern Gold Mining Co. (1911) 12 CLR 382).
10
15
20
25
30
Fullagar J in Associated Dominions Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Balford (1950) 81 CLR 161, 11. I should think that the document served in this case was an "instrument" 35 within the meaning of s. 46, and the argument was that, because the time allowed by the notice expired on a Sunday (16th), s. 36 (2) extended the time until midnight on the 17th. The notice having been served on the 3rd, the time which s. 55 required to be allowed expired at midnight on the 17th. The company, it was said, was entitled to have until that time to show cause. It 40 did have until that time. Therefore, it was said, the notice was a good and valid notice. (at p186) 12. I would agree that the combined effect of the notice and of s. 36 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act is that the company may "show cause" at any time up to midnight on 17th May. The last day of the period prescribed or allowed by the instrument for the doing of the thing falls on a Sunday. The "thing," therefore, may be done on the following day, which is a Monday. In my opinion, however, it does not follow that the notice was a good and valid notice. Section 36 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act does not say that the notice shall be construed as if the period specified in it expired on Monday the 17th, instead of Sunday the 16th. And s. 55 of the Life Insurance Act does say that the notice shall "specify" a period not less than fourteen days from
45
50
service of the notice. The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position. The two statutory provisions, read together, mean simply this: the notice must specify a period not less than fourteen days from service of the notice within which the thing must be done, and, if the last day of the period so specified falls on a Sunday, the thing may be done on the following Monday. The notice simply did not specify such a period, and it is, therefore, bad. (at p187) 13. In my opinion, the appeal should be allowed, and there should be judgment in the action for the plaintiff in the form of a declaration that the notice is invalid and void, and an injunction to restrain the respondent from instituting an investigation into the affairs of the company. (at p187) And There is some authority for saying that the use, in a statute prescribing a time limit, of such expressions as "at least" and "not less than" indicate an intention that the specified number of "clear days" must elapse between two acts or events (see R. v. Justices of Shropshire (1838) 8 Ad & E 173 (112 ER 803); Young v. Higgon (1840) 6 M & W 49 (151 ER 317); Chambers v. Smith (1843) 12 M & W 2 (152 ER
1085); In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885) 29 Ch D 204 and Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; 44 WN 43). But it is clear, I think, that significance is attached to such expressions as "at least" or "not less than" only in cases where the immediate purpose of the prescription of a time is to define a period on the expiration of which an act may be done, and not in cases where the immediate purpose is to define a period within which an act must be done. In the former class of case the prescribed number of days must elapse between two acts or events. In the latter class of case the act must (unless a contrary intention appears) be done before the expiration of the last of the prescribed number of days (see, e.g. Radcliffe v. Bartholomew (1892) 1 QB 161 and Armstrong v. Great Southern Gold Mining Co. (1911) 12 CLR 382). In the latter case Griffith C.J. said: - "When you talk of doing a thing within a period of a certain number of days, it is quite clear that the end of the last day is the furthest limit. It is impossible to say that a thing required to be done within seven days is done within seven days if done on the eighth day, and it is impossible to make any alteration of the limit by adding the word 'clear'" (1911) 12 CLR, at p 388. In the case of s. 55 of the Life Insurance Act it is plain that the immediate purpose of the prescription of a period is to fix a time within which cause must be shown. It follows that the last day on which cause may be shown is the fourteenth day after the date of the notice. (at p183)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45 What this indicates is that publications must done done appropriately or are not applicable at all. After all, if it were accepted otherwise, then Ministers may just delay publications until the passing of the objection/appeal period and by this circumvent any persons ability to object/appeal. 50 Bodney v Westralia Airports Corporation Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1609 (13 November 2000). Mayors and councils were elected (Pt IV). Part VIII conferred on a council power to make by-laws upon a wide range of matters; by-laws came into effect when confirmed by the Governor and published in the Gazette (s 186). 55 The Governor-General might direct that land be acquired by compulsory process (s 15(1)). The next step was the publication of a notification in the Gazette declaring
10
"that the land has been acquired under this Act for the public purpose therein expressed" (s 15(2)). Upon publication of the notification, the land, by force of the Act, was vested in the Commonwealth "freed and discharged from all trusts, obligations, estates, interests, contracts, licences, charges, rates and easements" (s 16); and the estate and interest of every person entitled to the land (including the title of the State to any Crown land) was converted into a claim for compensation (s 17). After publication of the notification, a copy was required to be served upon the owners of the land "or such of them as can with reasonable diligence be ascertained" (s 18). 32 For present purposes, an important aspect of that scheme is that no notification to owners was required before the publication in the Gazette; and the publication in the Gazette vested the land in the Commonwealth and converted former estates or interests in the land into claims for compensation. The scheme excludes the possibility that a failure to notify owners under s 18 would prevent the acquisition from becoming effective. Where the Commonwealth acquired land by compulsory process, extinguishment took place on the occurrence of the event which vested title in the Commonwealth: that is, the publication of the notice in the Gazette.
Re: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL EQUITY PTY. LTD. And: ROGER DAVID BARNARD BEALE, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS; ROBERT LINDSAY COLLINS, MINISTER OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS and THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA No. WA G14 of 1993 FED No. 141 Legislation (1993) 114 ALR 50 (1993) 41 FCR 242 (1993) 30 ALD 849 (extract)
15
20
25
30
His Honour concluded that in the case before him the publication of the instrument was essential to the valid exercise of the power and that no distinction could be drawn between the publication of the notice and the exercise of the power. At http://www.dofa.gov.au/infoaccess/informan/about_gazettes.html the following is provided by Ausinfo Commonwealth Gazettes of the Department of Finance and Administration;
35
Special Gazettes Contains notices that would normally appear in any of the above Gazettes but which are produced on demand when customers are unable to wait for the next Government Notices Gazette to publish their notice.
40 Ben Ward & Ors v State of Western Australia & Ors [1998] 1478 FCA (24 November 1998). As stated above in respect of pastoral leases, re-entry was effected by notice in the Government Gazette (WA) 45 If it were proposed to grant a lease for a term longer than ten years, wide publication of that intent was to be given by notice published in four consecutive numbers of the Government Gazette (WA), the first publication to be at least one month before the grant. The term of the lease was not to exceed twenty-one years. Two special leases granted under the Land Act 1933 (WA) for grazing purposes were said to have been issued in respect of land in the claim area. Neither lease is current. Grazing is not a purpose specified in s 116 of the Land Act 1933 (WA) and it must be assumed that it was a purpose approved by the Governor by notice in the Government Gazette
50
Formal notice of cancellation of the lease was published in the Government Gazette (WA) in 1996. That the Act Interpretation Act 1901 also states; 5 6 Evidence of date of assent or proclamation The date appearing on the copy of an Act printed by the Government Printer, and purporting to be the date on which the Governor-General assented thereto, or made known the Kings assent, shall be evidence that such date was the date on which the Governor-General so assented or made known the Kings assent, 10 and shall be judicially noticed. Gazettes are being issued with the wording Commonwealth of Australia and failing to show any reference to Government Printer and for this also failing to be recognised official publications.
15
However, this does not bind the State Court to allow evidence to be submitted as to the validity of the date, as the Commonwealth cannot direct the state Court as to how it shall conduct its proceedings. Therefore, if the Gazette does not bear anything of being government Printer, then it would be open to the Court to entertain any legal challenge to determine if the Gazette and/or 20 any legislation is in fact a legal enforceable document. WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374; Such as: To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means 25 of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny. Such as: In a case of emergency the regulation can be notified in the Gazette itself even if a special issue of the Gazette has to be published. I regard the availability of the terms 30 of the law to the citizen of paramount importance. Some other parts of the judgments BARWICK C.J. 5. A question of the interpretation of s. 48 (1) (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act was agitated during the hearing. That subsection provides that the regulations shall take effect from the date of their notification "or where another date is specified in the regulations, from the date specified". It was argued that this date could be a date anterior to the notification of the regulation including, of course, its prescription of that date. In my opinion, this date, unless the Parliament has expressly and intractably directed otherwise, must necessarily be a date subsequent to the date of notification. To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny. Parliament, in s. 48 (1), has recognized that justice requires that it be notified publicly before it becomes operative. I am quite unable to construe s. 48 (1) as a Parliamentary mode of expression of intention that the law should operate before it is notified. That would be so fundamentally unjust that it is an intention I could not attribute to the Parliament unless compelled by intractable language to do so. In my opinion, no semantic quirks of the draftsman would lead me to that conclusion - a conclusion which would attribute to the Parliament an intention to act tyrannically. In my opinion, what the section means is that the regulation will operate on or from the day it is notified or from such other day, being a subsequent day, as the regulation may specify. Such a construction is both reasonable, textually available and just. (at p379) And
35
40
45
50
10
8. Section 5 (3), in my opinion, provides a means whereby the obligations of s. 48 (1) may be satisfied. It is not intended, in my opinion, to provide any lesser obligation in regard to notification of the regulation. The change is to allow notification of a place where a copy of the regulation may be had in lieu of the publication of the text of the regulation in the Gazette. Just as the latter is a means of affording the citizen the means of knowing the terms of the law by which he is to be bound, so the former is to provide a like opportunity. So it seems to me, in order to satisfy what I have called the alternate method of notification, copies of the regulation must be procurable at the designated place when it is notified. This means in substance that a stock of copies of the regulation available for sale must be in hand. Just how large that stock should be will no doubt be a matter of judgment bearing in mind the subject matter of the regulation and the numerical size of the section of the community which its terms are designed to affect. (at p380) And JUDGE3 STEPHEN J. 21. Its great importance is apparent from the history of delegated legislation. That history reflects the tension between the needs of those who govern and the just expectations of those who are governed. For those who govern, subordinate legislation, free of the restraints, delays and inelasticity of the parliamentary process, offers a speedy and flexible mode of law-making. For the governed it may threaten subjection to laws which are enacted in secret and of whose commands they cannot learn: their reasonable expectations that laws shall be both announced and accessible will only be assured of realization by the imposition and enforcement of appropriate controls upon the power of subordinate legislators, whose power, as Fifoot observed "requires an adequate measure of control if it is not to degenerate into arbitrary government": English Law and its Background (1932). (at p394) And 23. These two enactments of the Commonwealth Parliament provide a mechanism for parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation and, no less importantly, allow those hom such laws affect to learn of their making and of their terms.
15
20
25
30
As Scott L.J. said in Blackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349, at p

361 , speaking there of sub-delegated legislation, "there is one quite general question . . . of supreme importance to the continuance of the rule of law under the British constitution, namely, the right of the public affected to know what that law is". The maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse forms the "working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy" but to operate it requires that "the whole of our law, written or unwritten, is accessible to the public - in the sense, of course, that at any rate its legal advisers have access to it at any moment, as of right". It was, his Lordship said (1948) 1 KB, AT p 370 , "vital to the whole English theory of the liberty of the subject, that the affected person should be able at any time to ascertain what legislation affecting his rights has been passed". (at p395) And JUDGE4 MASON J. 16. The subsections to which I have referred and the comments made in Dignan's Case proceed upon the footing that a regulation takes effect from the date of its notification, or where another date is specified in the regulations, from the date specified, for this is what s. 48 (1) (b) explicitly provides. Whether the requirement in s. 48 (1) (a) that the regulations shall be notified in the Gazette would, viewed in isolation, call for the publication in the Gazette of the regulations in their entirety is not a question that needs to be answered because s. 5 (3) of the Rules Publication Act applies so that publication of a notice in the
35
40
45
10
Gazette that the regulations have been made and of the place where copies can be purchased is a sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements respecting notification. In Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty. Ltd. v. Port Adelaide Corporation (1975) 11 SASR 504, at p 537 Wells J., referring to the requirement in s. 38 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915-1972 (S.A.) that regulations "shall be published in the Gazette", said: "In the setting of s. 38, and more especially because it is associated with the Government Gazette, the word, in my judgment, means rather to make generally accessible or available to the public". It is perhaps possible that the requirement in s. 48 (1) (a) that regulations "shall be notified in the Gazette" means something less than this, but for the reason which I have already given, I have no need to discuss this question. (at p405)
Section 32 of the Constitution
15
The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for the general elections of members of the House of Representatives. After the first election, the writs shall be issued within ten days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof.
Unlike the quoted Authority, in this case the Prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of 20 the House of Representatives was in that regard subject to Section 32 of the Constitution, hence an unresolved constitutional issue that remains on foot, and where the subsequent writs issued by the Governor-General therefore remain ULTRA VIRES, and without legal force, so also any purported enforcement of Section 245 of the CEA1918. 25 THE QUEEN v_ PEARSON; Ex parte SIPKA (1983) 152 CLR 254 In accordance with constitutional practice a dissolution of the House of Representatives or of both Houses occurs only on the advice to the Governor-General of the Prime Minister. It is well known that during the latter part of 1982 and early 1983 the Prime Minister, in repeated announcements which were widely reported, stated that there would not be an early election and towards the end of that period, that he was exploring the possibility of an election in 1984. (See, e.g., The Australian, 3 February 1983.) However without any prior public notice the Prime Minister announced in the late afternoon of 3 February 1983, that on his advice, the Governor-General had that day agreed to a double dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives; that the writs for the election would be issued on 4 February 1983, the date for nominations would be fixed as 19 February 1983; for the polling day, as 5 March 1983, and for the return of the writs, on or before 5 May 1983. Proclamations to this effect were issued on 4 February 1983. (at p266) 6. Thus, although s. 32 of the Constitution allows for issue within ten days, the writs were issued on the same day as the proclamation of the dissolution. Although that was done in 1914, the practice since then has been to allow a space of some days between the proclamation of a double dissolution and the issue of writs for the elections. In 1951 the writs were issued nine days after the proclamation; in 1974 the writs were issued nine days after the proclamation; in 1975 the writs for four States were issued six days after the proclamation and the writs for the other two States were issued ten days after the proclamation. (See Commonwealth Gazettes of 19 March 1951, 4 April 1974 and 11 November 1975.) (at p266)
30
35
40
45
50
And A right to vote is so precious that it should not read out of the Constitution by implication. Rather every reasonable presumption and interpretation should be adopted which favours the right of people to participate in the elections of those who represent them. (at p268)
WESTERN AUSTRALIA v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201 ;
10 10. By the second paragraph of s. 57 his Excellency is empowered to perform an executive act, namely, to convene a joint sitting of the members of the two Houses of the Parliament. Once a joint sitting is convened the powers and duties of the members present are defined by and derived from the third paragraph of s. 57 and his Excellency has no power to increase or diminish those powers or duties. The section provides that the members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon "the proposed law", which means any proposed law which answers the requirements of the first two paragraphs of the section (see Cormack v. Cope and Victoria v. The Commonwealth). His Excellency is given no power to authorize or direct the members present at a joint sitting to deliberate or vote upon any particular proposed law.
15
20
It seems to be clear that the validity of the issue of the writs isnt purely by the provisions of 25 Sections 12 and 32 nilly willy but rather as Section 2 indicates that the Governor-General shall use the powers subject to this Constitution as such any legislated provisions under Until the Parliament otherwise provides clearly is relevant as to the use of the powers of Section 12 and 32. The writs themselves acknowledge this by stating subject to the law and as such for all purposes is intended to be so. 30 Section 9 of the Constitution however enshrines State legislative provisions as to Senate elections as to time and places and therefore remains applicable as such. WESTERN AUSTRALIA v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201; 35 11. On behalf of the States it was argued that the proclamation must be construed so as to give full effect to all that it contains, and that in the absence of a statutory provision enabling a severance to be effected, the inclusion of the concluding words of the proclamation rendered it entirely invalid. It was submitted that if those words amounted to a direction or authorization they converted the proclamation from one of an executive to one of a legislative character, and that if they are merely descriptive they show that his Excellency intended to convene a sitting of a kind which he had no legal power to convene, namely, a sitting at which the members present should vote upon the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973. It was accordingly submitted that the proclamation was ineffective to convene a joint sitting for the purposes of s. 57. (at p241) 12. The power which his Excellency purported to exercise was purely executive in character. The first paragraph of s. 57 empowered him to do one thing only - to convene a joint sitting. The section did not require him to employ any
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
particular means for that purpose; it did not require him to issue a proclamation, although no doubt the issue of a proclamation was a natural and appropriate way of signifying in a formal manner that his Excellency has exercised the power given to him. If a proclamation is issued for the purpose of convening a joint sitting under s. 57, it is unnecessary, although it may be convenient, that it should refer to the proposed laws upon which it is expected that the members present at the sitting will vote. The concluding words of the proclamation were therefore an unnecessary addition to its operative provisions. In the case of a legislative instrument that contains some invalid provisions the question of interpretation that arises "is whether, after the extent to which the intended operation of the enactment is invalid has been ascertained, it is nevertheless the expressed will of the legislature that the whole or any part of the rest of the intended operation of the enactment should take effect by itself as a law...." (Bank of New South Wales v. The Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, at p 369 ). However, no similar question of interpretation arises in the present case. The question is whether his Excellency did convene a joint sitting. The answer, of course, is that he did - in fact as a result of his act the members of both Houses deliberated and voted together. If the concluding words of the proclamation are regarded as a purported authorization and direction by his Excellency to those present at the joint sitting to deliberate and vote on the six named proposed laws, part of the proclamation was beyond power and invalid but the invalidity of that part does not mean that his Excellency's act of convening a joint sitting should be treated as nugatory. If the concluding words are merely descriptive, the fact that the proclamation unnecessarily and erroneously stated that those present at the joint sitting might deliberate and should vote upon the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973 did not mean that a joint sitting had not been convened. The ineffective words unnecessarily included in the proclamation did not prevent it from taking effect as an act by which his Excellency convened a joint sitting of the members of both Houses of the Parliament. (at p242) and
35
40
45
50
This submission is related to the submission that the Governor-General's discretions either to prorogue or to dissolve are alternatives and must be exercised once and for all; but it seems to me that such a concept is quite foreign to the subject matter. It translates a principle commonly applicable to a judicial or curial discretion into the field of executive discretionary power. For it is an executive discretion or power which the Governor-General exercises. He does not act as a persona designata in a curial or quasi-judicial role. He acts either on the advice of the Executive Council or as an officer under the instructions of the Queen, in all cases subject to the Constitution. No doubt it was envisaged in 1900 that the Queen would at times give instructions on the advice of her United Kingdom ministers but it may now be taken that not only the Governor-General as the medium through which the Queen exercises her executive and prerogative powers but also the Queen herself acts on the advice of her Australian ministers in all matters appertaining to the government of the Commonwealth. Neither the Queen nor the Governor-General acts personally. This is true of the powers of the Governor-General under s. 57. He in all aspects
exercises his powers under the section on the advice of an Australian minister. He exercises executive power and there is no place for a concept that the power is exhausted or dissipated by his exercise of the other executive power, namely, the power to prorogue the Parliament. (at p278) 5
What ought not to be overlooked is the usage of the word may in Section 12 of the Australian Constitution in regard of the Governor of a State and in Section 32 in regard of the Governor-General in council The word may leaves it entirely upon the relevant Governor or the Governor -General in council to determine if the said governor or Governor-General in council should or shouldnt issue a writ in regard of an election. The relevant parts in itself do not commit the Governor and/or Governor General in council to issue writs. At most there is a usage of the word shall where there is a dissolution. It doesnt however compel the relevant Governor or the Governor-General in council to issue a writ if there is no dissolution. This means that the usage of the word may implies that the relevant Governor and Governor General in council may or may not decide to issue a writ upon their own personal consider ation. The fact that their personal consideration is applicable as to accept or reject the advise of the Federal Executive Council ought to indicate that therefore the Governor -General in council is not bound by the advise given as such. The term Governor-General in council rather then the usage of the term Governor-General indicates that the issue of the writs doesnt apply to the Governor -General regardless of the Federal Executive Council existing but rather that it is related to the advise of the Federal Executive Council but not that the Governor-General in council is bound by this. As to the reference of the Governor of any State this clearly is subject to Section 9, Chapter I, of the Australian Constitution and as such the Governor of a State is bound to follow the legal provisions of any writs being issued. This means that the relevant election period as prescribed in the Sections 155, 156 and 157 must be adhered to. Likewise, Section 31 of the Australian Constitution dictates that where a Writ is issued then the Governor-General in council is bound to comply with the legal provisions enacted relevant to such election and election period. As such, albeit the Govern -General in council and/or any relevant Governor may or may not in certain circumstances issue writs, once any of them decide or are compelled due to a dissolution to do so, then the writs must be in accordance to the legal provisions as applicable at the time of issue of the writs.
10
15
20
25
30
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture & Fisheries and Food (1968) AC 997 (1968) 1 ALL ER 694 House of Lords - Lord Upjohn and Lord Hodson 35
Upjohn: - (Irrelevant consideration) Here let it be said at once, he and his advisers have obviously given a bona fide and painstaking consideration to the complaints addressed to him; the question is whether the consideration was sufficient in law. Clearly, in law, insufficient consideration was given where the writs were issued in breach of legal provisions applicable at the time of the issue of the writs. As like any invalid legislation an invalid issue of writs equally can be ignored. Where any of the Governor and/or the Governor -General in council are in a position as to make a consideration to issue or not to issue a writ then it must follow that those affected by such decision ought to be entitled to contest the validity of such decision. Being it a voter, a candidate or otherwise. Likewise, where the relevant Governor and or the Governor -General in council issue writs within the ambit of a dissolution then any person affected by the issue of such writs ought to have a legal right to contest such writ(s), irrespective if the writs issues relate to more then one seat. This as the validity of a writ, such as for the house of Representatives of a State clearly covers more then one particular seat and it would be absurd if a person legitimately could contest the validity of an election upon the basis that the writ was found void but then the Court of Disputed Returns only direct the issue of writs for one particular election to be held while all other seats that were subjected to the same void writ were to be maintained as valid. Past decisions of the Court of Disputed Returns clearly restrict the Court of Disputed Return to deal only with the validity of an election at a particular seat and as such the Court of Disputed Return effectively has ruled out its own legal jurisdiction to deal with any dispute against a writ issue that relates to more then one seat. This apparent legal abnormality also left the Defendant no other course but to institute legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, as clearly, the disputing of the writ for the House of p38 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
40
45
50
55
Representatives seats, must be deemed as such to fall outside the legal jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns, at least by its own past rulings to limit disputed elections to one seat. That below indicates that indeed the avenue of Injunction was the appropriate way for the Defendant to seek legal
5 redress, as the Court of Disputed Returns it has nothing to do with the ordinary determination of the rights of
parties who are litigants, and hence could not deal with constitutional based objections.
10
Holmes v Angwin, (1906) 4 (Pt 1) CLR 297 at 309. Barton J said; "The character of the jurisdiction which has been exercised by Parliaments as to election petitions is purely incidental to the legislative power; it has nothing to do with the ordinary determination of the rights of parties who are litigants." The following
15
Mr. WISE: I would suggest before the amendment is moved that there are two questions involved here, which ought to be kept distinct. There is the qualification of a member or the question as to vacancies on the one side, and the question of a disputed return, which is a matter of altogether a different character. I apprehend that only questions of disputed returns should be dealt with by the Supreme Court, but that the Senate should have all control [start page 682] over all questions of order or decency over its own body which might lead it to expel a member.
20 Underlines that the question of disputed returns should be dealt with by the Supreme Court (High Court of Australia) and not by the Parliament as this related to a judicial matter. Sir EDWARD BRADDON: It is almost essential, to my mind, that these questions, more especially the question of disputed returns, should be determined by the Supreme Court, and not by the Senate.
25
As such, the Court of Disputed Returns is not the appropriate body to deal with a disputed return unless it deals with the matter as an ordinary Court of law, this is does not. As such the title 30 Court of Disputed Returns is an abnormality, a constitutional misdemeanour, as it does not provide the objectors with their constitutional and other legal rights normally entitled upon in a Court of law. but that the Senate should have all control [start page 682] over all questions of order or decency over its own body which might lead it to expel a member. I
35
This indicates that it was aimed that the House would deal internally with order and decency issues but leave judicial decisions over to the judiciary. The Court of Disputed Returns is however not as such a Court of Law as ordinary the High Court of Australia is, regardless that it 40 may involve the same judges of the High Court of Australia, this, as the Court of Disputed Returns does not operate in all manner as to the rights of the parties! Section 353 of the CEA1918 therefore was ill conceived, in that as Mr Wise and Sir Edward Braddon pointed out a disputed return is a judicial matter where as the question of order and decency were internal House decisions. 45 Remarcable is that somehow the Parliament purported to give the Courts the power to the Court of Disputed Returns to deal with election issues, but as this all along was considered to be a judicial issue then it should have been that the Court of Disputed Returns should have been constituted as an ordinary Court of law exercising federal judicial powers and not limited in time, etc. 50 The very issue of dealing with orders and decency has been retained by the Parliament itself and as such the Court of disputed Returns clearly was never intended to deal with non judicial issues, and as such petitions actually cannot be incidental to judicial power and the Court of Disputed Returns should operate as a ordinary Court of Law.
Holmes v Angwin, (1906) 4 (Pt 1) CLR 297 at 309. Barton J said; "The character of the jurisdiction which has been exercised by Parliaments as to election petitions is purely incidental to the legislative power; it has nothing to do with the ordinary determination of the rights of parties who are litigants." Clearly, this statement then must be deemed to be wrong, as the conception of the Court of Disputed Returns was to deal with judicial decisions, not with purely incidental decisions to the legislative power.
10 Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Clause 20.-Until The Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a member, or a vacancy in the Senate, or a disputed return, shall be determined by the Senate. Mr. BARTON: My hon. friend Mr. Carruthers has suggested an amendment to this clause, which certainly should be made. I shall move: To strike out in line 8, the word " return" and insert in lieu thereof "election." That is a wider term. It covers more ground and increases the necessary jurisdiction of the House over such questions. Mr. HOWE: Supposing a vacancy occurs in the House of Representatives, is it likely that a State will be put to the expense of an election for one representative? Mr. BARTON: The matter of vacancies in the House of Representatives is a subsequent matter. This clause deals with the Senate, Sir EDWARD BRADDON: It is almost essential, to my mind, that these questions, more especially the question of disputed returns, should be determined by the Supreme Court, and not by the Senate. We have found out from practical experience the necessity of making this change, and submitting these questions to the Supreme Court, and I hope that in making this great and high departure and forming a Federal Parliament we shall not run into any errors which will necessitate any changes whatever in the early stages of our Federal Government. I shall move:That the words "High Court" be substituted for "Senate."
15
20
25
30
[start page 681] Mr. BARTON: I would ask Sir Edward Braddon not to have his amendment formally put. This matter was also a subject of very considerable discussion in the Constitutional Committee, and the clause now represents the result of that discussion It amounted to this: There were a good many of us who thought that matters of this kind should be decided by the Judges, instead of what we have found to be a fallacious tribunal, a Committee of the Houses of Parliament. At the same time, it was thought better to leave the matter as it stands in the Constitution, only you must put a proviso in the beginning. That is to say, the words will be placed in the section, "until The Parliament otherwise provides." It seems to me that it is a matter for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to determine whether the Houses, after they are called together, shall determine this question, or whether the Judges should do it. It is a matter for the Federal Parliament to deal with. It increases the freedom of action of the Parliament of the Federation, and for that reason it is also desirable to leave it in the hands of the Parliament. Mr. SYMON: It is quite open to the Parliament to decide. Mr. BARTON: It is quite open to it, and if the Parliament will not undertake the matter itself, it will delegate it to the High Court. But that is a matter of internal arrangement. p40 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
35
40
Mr REID: I do not intend to propose an amendment, but I express my very great regret that the Drafting Committee have not seen fit to place in the Constitution the power of determining these disputed returns by some judicial authority. Mr. BARTON: We followed the instructions of the Constitutional Committee.
Mr. REID: I understood that the feeling was strongly the other way. Mr. BARTON: It was carried this way. Mr. REID: I feel very strongly, looking at the constant scandals and outrages which have occurred in the United States over this very question, when the existence of a party has been at stake, that it is infinitely advisable that we should put in this Constitution provision which shall protect the electors from frauds upon their rights, which might be made to suit the interests of political party. It might happen that some great struggle might be determined in the Senate of thirty-six members, according to the decision of a political committee, as to whether a certain return was valid or not. I think the time has come when we should alter this clause. I am perfectly sure that if it is left to the Federal Parliament, that Parliament will never do it. Mr. BARTON: It is done in England. Mr. REID: But how long did it take? We all know how many years it took-an enormous time, and an enormous struggle-before the power was taken out of the hands of Parliament. Do we not remember the tremendous scandals which disfigured the election tribunals of England when they were within the power of the House of Commons? I really think that I ought to test the opinion of the Committee upon this, as I look upon it as a matter that might at some future time affect the destinies of the whole of the Commonwealth, because it is a very small body, and one vote might make all the difference. Mr. BARTON: Substitute "High Court of Justice thereof." Mr. REID: I would make it more elastic than that. I would prefer not to move an amendment yet, but I hope we will settle it very soon.
10
15
20
25
30
Mr. WISE: I would suggest before the amendment is moved that there are two questions involved here, which ought to be kept distinct. There is the qualification of a member or the question as to vacancies on the one side, and the question of a disputed return, which is a matter of altogether a different character. I apprehend that only questions of disputed returns should be dealt with by the Supreme Court, but that the Senate should have all control [start page 682] over all questions of order or decency over its own body which might lead it to expel a member. I move: To strike out the words, "or a disputed return." Then we can deal with disputed returns in a subsequent section. I entirely concur with what has fallen from my hon. friend Mr. Reid with regard to the power of the Election and Qualification Committee to deal with disputed returns. I have had the advantage of appearing before that body in every capacity. I have been there as counsel, I have been there as member, and I have been there as the accused party, and I do not know in which capacity I found them the least satisfactory. Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I will put this question to the test by moving: That the first words of the clause "Until the Parliament otherwise provides" be struck out. Mr. REID: They had better be left in. If my hon. friend will allow me, I am just drafting an amendment which I think will meet the case. I think we might pass on with the amendment proposed by Mr. Wise, namely, to leave out the words "or a disputed return." Then let the clause stand as it is, and by and bye I would suggest a new clause to follow that clause. I will ask my hon. friend Mr. Barton to draw up some clause that will meet the difficulty. p41 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
35
40
Mr. BARTON: I am tired of drafting clauses. Mr. REID: Well, will my hon. friend allow me to draft one? Mr. BARTON: Certainly. Sir Edward Braddon's amendment withdrawn; Mr. Wise's amendment agreed to clause, as amended, agreed to. Another difficulty exist with the provision of Section 383(1) which allow only a candidate or the Electoral Commission to make an application for an Injunction. If this would be construed that this would it the application to merely the seat of the candidate then this too would result that effectively the disputed issue of the writs relating to all seats of the House of Representatives in one State effectively would result that then an Injunction could be sought by one candidate and the Court could find that there is a justified ground to issue the injunction but others seats subjected to the same writ held invalid would continue to be unchallenged unless one of each of those seat a candidate pursues litigation. This could hardly have been the intention of the parliament and it would defy the right in common law of the Defendant where he would be denied as a voter to pursue an Injunction in regard of any illegal practices the Aust ralian Electoral Commission may be guilty of or be alleged guilty of in regard of any seats for the Senate or House of Representative he might wish to vote in. It appears that the Parliament perhaps never envisigated that all the writs could be challenged albeit in WESTERN AUSTRALIA v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; NEW SOUTH WALES v_ THE COMMONWEALTH ; QUEENSLAND v_ THE COMMONWEALTH (1975) 134 CLR 201 the conduct of the Governor-General in regard of the dissolution was in question. It appears to the Defendant that for this the High Court of Australia is entitled to allow the Defendant to dispute matters which are affecting his common law rights as a voter being enrolled. Indeed, the Defendant having refused to vote on the 10 th day of November 2001 upon the position that there was no valid election being held and so the poll held was invalid in law. As such, there is no compliance required to vote in an election that isnt an election in accordance to the constitutional requirements (including laws enacted in aid of the Constitutional requirements. Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
10
15
20
25
30
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation[100], "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
35 The Parliament exists of the Governor-General (for the Monarch) and those Members of Parliament, which were duly and properly elected according to constitutional and other relevant legislative provisions and then took up their seat in the Parliament. Therefore, if there is no Parliament in session or summonsed, then the function of all 40 Departments seizes to exist, beyond the time of 3 years of the first sitting of the last Parliament. Section 64 doesnt and neither must be perceived to provide the Governor-General any constitutional powers to appoint Ministers without bothering ever to issue writs for any election, where there is no Parliament in session or summonsed. 45 David Russell Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation Sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution combine to provide for the executive power of the Commonwealth, which is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General, to be exercised "on the initiative and advice"[35] of Ministers and limit to three months the period in which a Minister of State may hold office without being or becoming a senator or member of the House of Representatives.
50
While the Constitution does provide for the expiry of the Legislature (Parliament) and not the Executive. It is clear however, that the Governor-General, within the ambit of provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution could ongoing appoint Ministers without any elections being held. As such, the appointment of Ministers is for a limited period only, and then 5 this power of appointment cannot proceed without holding any session of Parliament within a calendar year. David Russell Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation The requirement that the Parliament meet at least annually, the provision for control of supply by the legislature, the requirement that Ministers be members of the legislature, the privilege of freedom of speech in debate, and the power to coerce the provision of information provide the means for enforcing the responsibility of the Executive to the organs of representative government. In his Notes on Australian Federation: Its Nature and Probable Effects[38], Sir Samuel Griffith pointed out that the effect of responsible government "is that the actual government of the State is conducted by officers who enjoy the confidence of the people". That confidence is ultimately expressed or denied by the operation of the electoral process, and the attitudes of electors to the conduct of the Executive may be a significant determinant of the contemporary practice of responsible government[39].
10
15
20
The Commonwealth powers are created by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and are subject to there being a Parliament in session or a Parliament summonsed, apart of the period before the first elections being held. 25 The framers made it a condition that there must always be a Parliament in session or one summonsed within 10 days of the House of Representative expire or being dissolved. Albeit, the writs are referred to in Section 32 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, there can be no summonsing of the Parliament if writs are not issued. 30 Hansard 5-3-1891 Mr. PLAYFORD: There solutions afterwards go on to provide for an executive, for a governorgeneral, and for the appointment of his advisers: 35 such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the majority.
Constitutionally, where the writs were invalid in 2001 then no Parliament could have been sitting, as there were no members validly elected, and therefore neither any laws can be 40 enforced. Part of a correspondence forwarded to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; 45 QUOTE part of 2-8-2005 correspondence WITHOUT PREJUDICE Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions C/o Judy McGillivray BA JBB
2-8-2005
15th floor, 460 Lonsdale Street. Melbourne, Vic 3000 Tel; 96054333, Fax 9670 4295 5
Your reference; 05101011
Madam, Thank you for your correspondence dated 1 August 2005, received today. As I recall it, on 4 December 2002 you indicated that there was MERIT in my case and submitted to the Court to adjourn matters as to enable the High Court of Australia to deal with the S78B Judiciary Act 1903 constitutional challenge. Contrary to your assertion, this constitutional challenge has not been disposed of and remains on 10 foot. Hence, I view, the current charge is ill conceived, as until and unless the Court pronounces in favour of the legislations I objected against, those legislative provisions remain NULL AND VOID (Ultra Vires). Your letter, dated 1-8-2005 does not refer to my 1-8-2005 correspondence to the Deputy Registrar, and this most likely because your letter may have been sent out unaware my 1-8-2005 correspondence. I would urge you to consider the reference to Foster (1950) S.R. 15 (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate) It is my view, of our previous contact at the Court that you pursued matters honourable, and as such my reference to Foster is not seeking to have a go at you, so to say, of past conduct as person but rather that I desire you to be upfront to the Court about the current legal mess. 20 As you stated, I act on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in relation to the charge and summons.. Now, I for one, if I were in your position would have grave concerns as to seemingly having been set up by my client to deceive the other party and the court on 4 December 2002, albeit then it being unknown to yourself, to me and the court. Again, my impression of your conduct on 4 December 2002 was that you sought to act 25 honourable, but afterward, that is a considerable time later, I discovered that you have been, so to say, uses as a fool by your client. After all, while you did submit to the Court to have the matter adjourned person the hearing of the S78B constitutional challenge with the outstanding appeal before the High Court of Australia, your client (Australian Electoral commission) was in fact, so to say, playing a dirty game. This, as unbeknown to both yourself, my self and so also the 30 Magistrates Court at Melbourne, already in March 2002 your client had filed for a Chamber Summons to have the appeal struck out/dismissed or whatever. In view that they did not serve me with the Chamber Summons the true version of it remained unknown. Then on 23-10-2002 your client then filed for a NOTICE OF MOTION, which neither was made known to you, myself and so neither to the Magistrates Court of Victoria, sitting at Heidelberg, on 4 December 35 2002, to have my appeal dismissed. On 3 October 2003 this NOTICE OF MOTION came before the High Court of Australia, and I had filed numerous written objections, including that I was never properly served with the NOTICE OF MOTION. The High Court of Australia did not make a formal ruling to dismiss any of my objections, as such, upon legal principles, never invoked any legal jurisdictions, but Gummow did comment that the NOTICE OF MOTION 40 was part of the Application Book, of 19 August 2003. END QUOTE part of 2-8-2005 correspondence And 45 QUOTE part of 2-8-2005 correspondence As I indicated above, the onus is upon the Commonwealth of Australia to obtain a Court order in its favour when legislation is challenged to constitutionally validate the legislation. I need to do no more but to make an oral and/or written objection, and do not even need to pursue litigation in that regard! It would be a gross error on your part if you were to assume 50 otherwise.
You now have the option, so to say, to sell your sole and ignore your oath made or you will not stand for being used by your client to have deceived the Court on 4 December 2002 and will seek matters to be appropriately sorted out before any further litigation is pursued against me. 5 Your client, provided me with a form 17 Authorities of judicial decisions, but as I have set out extensively to your client, those decision were made at a time when the Hansard records of the Constitutional Convention Debates were not permitted to be used in the courts, where as since the 1992 Franklin Dam case matters are different now that the Hansard records of the Constitutional Convention Debates now are even used (albeit often in an incorrect context) by 10 the High Court of Australia itself. Hence, whatever past judicial decisions were, they must be looked at again in view of the intentions of the Framers as expressed in the Hansard records of the Constitutional Convention Debates. In my view, where I was very much pursuing constitutional issues and used all efforts to try to 15 have matters heard, but your client using different lawyers then already sought to circumvent this and in the end perverted the course of justice, as I view it, then I do not accept that the 20002 constitutional challenge has been disposed off. In my view, your client had an obligation to follow through with the constitutional challenge to be determined by the High Court of Australia, and have the lawyers it used representing in the High Court of Australia to make known to the 20 Court that there was a 4 December 2002 order on foot for this constitutional challenge. As your client used deceptive conduct to not just frustrate but to prevent the constitutional challenge to be heard and determined, then your client hardly could have the benefits of the fruits sowed by this deceptive and misleading conduct. Neither do I accept therefore your proposition that the 2002 case be joined, as this is a case that must be dealt with first of all in its own right 25 before the 2004 alleged failure to vote is to be dealt with. After all, if in the end my case were to be found proven, and there is no obligation to vote, then clearly the 2004 issue would not arise. Further, if indeed the 2001 election was unconstitutional then obviously the subsequent 2004 election would be unconstitutional. As they say in legal principles, no subsequent court order can validate an court order made without legal jurisdiction! 30 END QUOTE part of 2-8-2005 correspondence And QUOTE part of 2-8-2005 correspondence 35 As I was a candidate in the (purported) election, it ought to be obvious that no court ever had to deal with a candidate objection to vote as having to vote for those he/she stood against. Hence, in that regard also, no authority of the past can be relied upon as being a proper authority! Just consider yourself to apply for becoming a partner in a law firm, and you then having to elect other lawyers who also want to become a partner in the same law firm as to determine that the 40 one with the most votes will get the partner ship! Would that not be a nonsense? Well, so is the unconstitutional demand to for me to vote for those candidates I oppose and stand against! In my view, I should not be the one having to pursue all kinds of litigation what really is the task of the Australian Electoral Commission, as to ensure that it conduct FAIR and PROPER elections within the constitutional framework the Commonwealth Electoral Act was to have 45 been enacted. As the Framers made clear, if the Commonwealth were to have constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship then it could in effect interfere with the political rights of an elector in a State. By this prevent electors to vote in State lections and by this cause the abolition of the States! Could you as an OFFICER OF THE COURT really lend your hand to allow this undermining of State legislative powers to not just occur but to participate in this, if 50 not directly then indirectly, by assisting your client in the disgraceful manner of having misled the courts, yourself and myself?
Why on earth did your client conceal from the Court on 4 December 2002 about what it was doing in the High Court of Australia? Surely, their ulterior motives ought to be investigated? END QUOTE part of 2-8-2005 correspondence 5 QUOTE part of 1-8-2005 CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Magistrates Court of Victoria, at Heidelberg 1-8-2005 C/o Jason Cabral Deputy Registrar 10 Phone 84582000 Fax 84582001 Ref; NV13 Hearing date 4-8-2005 Cc; 15 Chief Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Victoria Premier of Victoria Mr Steve Bracks, Parliament House, Fax 03 96515054 Australian Electoral Commission Divisional Returning Officer for Division of JAGAJAGA C/o Mr R H W MARTIN Fax 9457 6000 REPLY PAID 146, HEIDELBERG VIC 3084 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Sir, Despite of my previous correspondences to you, I have as yet not received any response 25 as to even confirm having received the faxed correspondence, let alone a more detailed response. For the record, my computer keeps a record of faxes send out, and as such, I for one have a record that those faxes were send and completed in sending. In my view, if the matter were to proceed for hearing, I take the position it may last several days 30 for the Court to deal with the matter. I notice that the charge makes a claim did fail to vote however, I have not noticed any supportive evidence as to set out why this claim as such was made. Being it a criminal trial, under criminal provisions, then surely I am entitled to be informed of relevant evidence prior to 35 any trial commencing, so that I can prepare any case in response. See also below for further set out of averment of evidence. As the Framers of the Constitution Convention Bill 1898 made clear that DUE PROCESS OF LAW must be provided in regard of any claims about breaches of Commonwealth law, hence, this includes a proper and detailed set out why this claim is made. END QUOTE part of 1-8-2005 CORRESPONDENCE 40 And QUOTE part of the 1-8-2005 CORRESPONDENCE no legal justification for this! 45 As author of the 30 September 2003 published book; INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed. ISBN 0-9580569-6-X I then also quoted the following;
Hansard records 17-3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
20
50
55
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).p46 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
10
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
15 Again;
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. And
20
The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
And, if you had any appropriate education in constitutional provisions and limitations then you may also be aware that the constitution was framed upon the widest possible election provisions 25 applicable in any State at the time of Federation. In Queensland, in 1899 it was a criminal offence, to seek to force a person to vote, etc, which by the subsequent Federation became applicable to all States as part of the minimum standards applicable in the term POLITICAL LIBERTY! CRIMES ACT 1914 (Cth) 28 Interfering with political liberty Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years. Greg T (QC) And QUOTE 40
----- Original Message ----From: Greg Tudehope To: John Wilson ; JUSTICE GROUP ; Peter Gargan Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: $7,009.80 Bill of Costs for not voting.
30
35
45
John, I don't bother to vote for any of the dishonest grubs in

Queensland either and as yet I have not been threatened with any offence for not doing so. I have contacted the Electoral Commission and stated that if any person ever threatens me for not voting I will take advantage of the law that applies in Queensland but they claimed that they were unaware of what I was talking about. The facts are that if I am threatened by any body for not voting it is a criminal offence and I believe it would be the same in NSW but I am unaware of what the state of the law is down there. 10 I have attached a copy of the section of the Criminal Code Qld that applies here. s 102 81 s 103 Criminal Code Act 1899 102 Undue influence Any person who (a) uses or threatens to use any force or restraint, or does or threatens to do any temporal or spiritual injury, or causes or threatens to cause any detriment of any kind, to an elector in order to induce the elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or on account of the elector having voted or refrained from voting at an election; or (b) by force or fraud prevents or obstructs the free exercise of the franchise by an elector, or by any such means compels or induces an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election; is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 1 year, or to a fine of $400. Greg Tudehope (QC) Qld Criminal END QUOTE QUOTE 30
Victorian Consolidated Legislation
15
20
25
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 354

Indictments 35 354. Indictments Upon the application of any person supported by an affidavit disclosing an indictable offence and either that the same has been committed by some body corporate or that a court has declined or refused to commit or hold to bail the alleged offender or that no presentment was made against him at the court at which the trial would in due course have taken place, or upon the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it shall be lawful for the Full Court to order the Juries Commissioner to summon a grand jury to appear at a court to be holden at a time and place to be mentioned in the order; and
40
10
upon receipt of such order the Juries Commissioner shall summon not less than twenty-three men to attend at such court at the time and place aforesaid to inquire present do and execute all things which on the part of the Queen shall then and there be commanded of them, and such men shall be taken from the jury roll of the jury district in which such place is situate and at the time and place aforesaid the said Juries Commissioner shall bring into court the said order with the name, occupation and date of birth of every grand juror written on a panel signed by him and sealed with his seal of office and shall deliver the said panel to the proper officer of the said court, who shall in open court call aloud the names of the grand jurors on the said panel one after another, and the twenty-three men so first drawn and appearing or if twenty-three men shall not appear such of them as do appear not being less than twelve men shall be the grand jury and shall be sworn and act as such accordingly:
15 Provided always that every such order shall be delivered to the Juries Commissioner ten days before the day on which the indictment is intended to be preferred. END QUOTE 20 Again; John, I don't bother to vote for any of the dishonest grubs in Queensland either and as yet I have not been threatened with any offence for not doing so. 25 I have contacted the Electoral Commission and stated that if any person ever threatens me for not voting I will take advantage of the law that applies in Queensland but they claimed that they were unaware of what I was talking about. The facts are that if I am threatened by any body for not voting it is a criminal offence and I believe it would be the same in NSW but I am unaware of what the state of the law is down there. I have attached a copy of the section of the Criminal Code Qld that applies here. s 102 81 s 103 Criminal Code Act 1899 35 While Mr Greg Tudehope (QC) Qld Criminal is a barrister in Queensland Criminal law, he obviously was not aware of how it applied constitutionally to other States. However, in my published books I have canvassed this extensively, that this is applicable and quoted Hansard records for this also, of which some is quoted below; 40 If the Commonwealth is created they have all their electoral rights conserved to them under this Constitution.
30
As any Commonwealth law must apply equally throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, then any such rights preserved for Queenslanders by this clearly also became applicable for all other 45 electors of other States upon federation. Not to apply this would have been meaning that different legislative provisions were to have been enacted for each State by the Commonwealth, which
itself would have been unconstitutional! The very purpose of having unified electoral provisions was to provide the Commonwealth with legislative powers but so broadly based upon the minimum applicable in any State. By this, providing that the minimum Standards ogf any State became applicable to all States.
Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON: I will come to that in a moment. What I wish to say now is that under the proposal there is no deprivation to the women of South Australia. They have at present their right to vote for all the concerns of the State. If the Commonwealth is created they have all their electoral rights conserved to them under this Constitution. The only thing would be that whether they were allowed to vote or not, the voting would have to be so regulated that South Australia would only be allowed her proper strength in taking the referendum. And Mr. DEAKIN: Some days ago I was one of those who was struck, on consideration, by the fact that it was possible to be confronted by such a problem as has just been presented to us. We ought to realise that the proposition of my hon. friend Mr. Barton means an entire change in principle in the Bill of 1891 as to the making of amendments in the Constitution. This is one of the most important provisions of the Bill. As adopted in 1891, it ran: And if the proposed amendment is approved by the Conventions of a majority of the States, and if the people of the States whose Conventions approve of the amendment are also a majority of the people of the Commonwealth, the proposed amendment shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent. Under this scheme a very large State, by mere abstinence on the part of its electors, might render-the vote of a large majority of those who went to the poll fruitless. It does not provide for the rule of the majority. On consideration it appeared to me that this was unjust, and that the suggestion made by Mr. Lewis, the hon. member for Tasmania, was just, inasmuch as it provided for the complete carrying out of the axiom requiring a majority of the States and a majority of the people's vote. The only difficulty in the way of Mr. Lewis's proposal was the franchise of South Australia. I differ from Mr. Barton in believing that the votes of female electors of South Australia must be taken into account. Both male and female votes must go to form the majority of the State. But when the question arises whether in addition to having a majority of the States you have a majority of the people. Then in order to put South Australia on a fair basis you must omit the female votes, because the majority has to be a majority upon a uniform franchise. And Mr. BARTON: It has been suggested that the difficulty could be overcome by the following amendment, which I will move:
10
15
20
25
30
35
To strike out sub-section 4, with the view of inserting the following sub-section: And if a majority of the States and a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, the proposed law shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent; but, until the qualification of electors of Members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the votes for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails. Amendment agreed to.
40
Again; and a majority of the electors voting Therefore, it is not as to the voters registered and entitled to vote but rather the majority of those 45 actual voting. People not wanting to vote, and not casting any vote therefore cannot be counted. As was stated;
by mere abstinence on the part of its electors, might render-the vote of a large majority of those who went to the poll fruitless. Clearly, it was recognised that electors could abstain from voting. 5 And this was provided for; If the Commonwealth is created they have all their electoral rights conserved to them under this Constitution. 10 As for example under Queensland Criminal law it was a crime to force a person to vote! Therefore, the same continues to apply, regardless if since federation this legislation was maintained, as the Constitution embodies this principle throughout the Commonwealth! Again; If the Commonwealth is created they have all their electoral rights conserved to them 15 under this Constitution.
QUOTE 26-7-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
Despite of the content of my 15-7-2005 correspondence, faxed to you and Mr King that day, I have not received any response and as such now request you to place the matter in the hands of 20 the chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court of Victoria for full and proper investigation. Also, I request you to clarify if you issued the summons in ADMINISTRATIVE capacity or in a JUDICIAL capacity.
END QUOTE 26-7-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
25 . My view is;
QUOTE 26-7-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
30
The Courts are not there to convict people but that they are there to hand down JUSTICE. If the latter includes a conviction then so be it. This means that the court must act without bias and seen to act without bias to hear and determine matters. If any court acts in a way to score a conviction, either deliberately or without intention, by denying a person of a fair and proper hearing then this itself undermines the credibility of the court in question and also undermines the foundations of the democratic system.
35
END QUOTE 26-7-2005 CORRESPONDENCE
END QUOTE part of the 1-8-2005 CORRESPONDENCE

END QUOTE 19-7-2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT -County Court of Victoria
DESIRE to vote cannot be compulsory to vote! 40 & Section 245 CEA was and remains ULTRA VIRES at least since 4-12-2002 and for this also the 2004 FAILING TO VOTE charge has no legal foundation 45 The Defendant has in fact refused to vote in recent State elections and no prosecutions for this followed, where the Defendant advised to have objections to vote in State elections! As a matter of fact the State Attorney-General himself advised that there is no State citizenship! Without State citizenship there can be no Australian citizenship (Commonwealth citizenship) as both includes franchise. It is because of Federation that the then Colonies transferred certain 50 legislative powers from the Colonies (now States) to the Commonwealth of Australia that by this obviously the right of a State citizen to vote who shall be their legislators was partly transferred also to the Commonwealth of Australia by this, hence, no state citizen could therefore be denied franchise in the Federal arena where such person had obtained State franchise, as Section 41 of the Constitution protected that right.
At time of Federation and indeed at the time of the Commonwealth of Australia enacting legislation as to voting, there was no general obligation for anyone to vote. The Commonwealth of Australia began to make voting compulsory in 1911, this, even so it was not compulsory in the States. By this, the Commonwealth of Australia unconstitutionally infringed upon the freedoms 5 of the electors. In the error that it could do so (legislate for compulsory voting) failing to be aware that it was bound by the liberties existing at the time the Constitution was created, and that it could not diminish or reduce any rights and freedoms, regardless that any State may have done so since for its own State elections. Subsequently States commenced to legislate also to make voting compulsory. 10 The following quotation of a document published by the Australian Electoral Commission under the heading, Compulsory Voting in Australia by Tim Evans, Director Elections Systems & Policy, Australian Electoral Commission, 16 January 2006; 15 In 1915, consideration was given to introducing compulsory voting for a proposed referendum. As the referendum was never held the idea wasnt pursued.
As such, while initially there was an issue to have this approved by way of Section 128 of the 20 Constitution referendum, this was never proceeded with. Hence, it cannot be argued that this compulsory voting was approved by the electors! While compulsory voting was introduced in 1915 in Queensland, and in the Commonwealth of Australia federal political environment by way of a Bill in 1924, it nevertheless could not circumvent the fact that it was not constitutionally permissible. 25 The impact was immediate, with turnout at the 1925 election rising to over 91%. Victoria introduced compulsory voting in 1926, NSW and Tasmania in 1928, WA in 1936 and SA in 1942. 30 When enrolment and voting at federal elections was introduced for Australian Aborigines in 1949 it was voluntary, and continued to be so until 1984 when enrolment and voting became compulsory for all eligible electors. As the Commonwealth of Australia only could legislate for the whole of the Commonwealth (as 35 the Framers of the Constitution made very clear during the Debates) and in 1949 the 1967 referendum had not been held, then clearly there was a conflict in that the Commonwealth of Australia somehow did not make it compulsory for Aboriginals to vote, yet did so (albeit wrongly) for others. Indeed, it still does not have it compulsory for those in the Antarctic. As such, it appears the 40 Federal Parliament legislate upon its wimps rather then to consider what is constitutionally permissible and appropriate. In view that the Defendant had from onset opposed the Magistrates Court of Victoria to invoke legal (federal) jurisdiction and in fact the magistrate on 4-12-2002 made orders to have those 45 constitutional issues to be addressed then the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions clearly had an OBLIGATION to place before the magistrate on 16 and 17 November 2005 the set out of matters and why the Magistrate then could invoke jurisdiction. This it never did. Voting as a Civic Duty Proponents of compulsory voting argue that voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform, such as taxation, compulsory education and
50
10
15
20
25
jury duty. Opponents argue that it is an infringement of liberty to force people to vote, and that the ill informed and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls. One argument against compulsory voting is that voting can be an onerous imposition on some citizens. Against this it has been stated by Mr Christopher Bayliss, in a submission to JSCEM, that: All our voting system requires is for a voter to attend a polling booth and mark some papers as they wish, approximately once every three years. This does not seem to be an insurmountable burden to be part of a democracy. Another argument is that both the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refer to peoples rights to freely chosen representatives. It is then claimed that a right is something that a person posses and chooses to use, not something produced on demand. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, states that rights and freedoms are subject to duties to the community, including the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has stated, in a submission to JSCEM, that: There are many things that people do not wish to do and which they would not do if they were able to exercise individual freedoms, but which parliament has legislated to require. The role of parliament in a parliamentary democracy includes passing laws to ensure the effectiveness of that democratic system. For opponents of compulsory voting, the question is about the nature and extent of the obligations that it is acceptable for the parliament to impose. 13 The writer of this article (published by the Australian electoral commission) clearly never considered the fact that constitutionally the political liberty could not be compromised, unless a Section 128 referendum was successful to give such powers to do otherwise.
30
35 It is not an argument if the parliament can or cannot legislate to force people to do something that they may not desire to do but rather is the parliament has in the first place the constitutional legislative powers to do so! If there is no such constitutional powers then it is immaterial what the Parliament may desire unless it first obtains such additional power by way of a Section 128 of the Constitution 40 referendum For example, the Commonwealth of Australia may very well desire to legislate to have all driver licences being the same throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and to ensure that any conviction in anyone State or Territory is applied against any driver regardless where this driver 45 resides, but, regardless how sensible this might sound, in the end the Commonwealth of Australia lacks any constitutional powers to legislate for this and therefore it is not relevant if the Federal parliament desires to provide certain legislation but the first, so to say, port of call is if there is any constitutional powers to legislate. 50 The Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers in regard of elections is bound by what is embedded in the Constitution and this includes if they desire to exercise their franchise and
therefore it is not what anyone may deem should be done rather if there is constitutional powers for it. Nothing is stopping the Commonwealth of Australia to pursue a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum to make voting compulsory, but unless and until it achieves an approval as such of the people compulsory voting legislation is and remains ULTRA VIRES. 5 On 24-3-1897 it was stated; if they desire to exercise their franchise and on 15-4-1897 Mr Gordon proposed to make registration and voting compulsory but this had been rejected and Mr Gordon then withdrew his submission. Hence voting cannot be made compulsory either. The word desire clearly leaves it up to the choice of the elector to vote or not to vote! Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to the Federal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given the right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.
10
15
20
25 Again
At the same time, as some colonies have given the right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned.
30 And
I would go the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.
35 Desire stands for an expressed wish, option, choice, request, etc, not being compulsory! Because the Commonwealth of Australia could only legislate in regard of qualifications and other rights not to minimize but to increase the rights of any person, then clearly any legislation that is to remove such rights or to force a person to vote against his desire must be deemed 40 unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES. Hence, the Court could not invoke any jurisdiction for this either, as to deal with any charges of FAILING TO VOTE. It should be considered also that the State of Victoria recognize the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and as any federal franchise is based upon 45 State franchise then for this also this is applicable. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1
(For general comments on its implementation see
50 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+12.En?OpenDocument)
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
PART II Article 2
(For general comments on its implementation see http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+3.En?OpenDocument)
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
10
15
20
Article 3
(For general comments on its implementation see
25 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR.C.21.Rev.1.Add.10,+CCPR+Gen)
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Article 25 30 (For general comments on its implementation see

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+4.En?OpenDocument) Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
35
40 No judgment of any court ever appears to have addressed the numerous constitutional issues raided by the defendant, and any judgment of the High Court of Australia never either addressed the scope of issues as the defendant has raised.
The desire by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to at all cost score a conviction regardless of how inappropriately this might be I view never should be a justification for this Court to appropriately adjudicate matters for so far it can invoke legal jurisdiction, if at all. 5 In criminal cases, such as for example murder, no Court of law would convict an accused merely because another person faced with a same charged was previously convicted. Each and every case must be considered upon its own merits, and if the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions cannot even overcome the issue of jurisdiction then there clearly never was/is a case to answer. 10 As is quoted below
Mr. GORDON.Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised.
15
20
25
30
35
It therefore cannot be held that while the Magistrates Court of Victoria on 4-12-2002 adjourned proceedings so constitutional issues could be dealt with by the High Court of Australia to determine if the legislation objected against upon constitutional grounds could be declared INTRA VIRES somehow the very legislation being now ULTRA VIRES still continues to operate against anyone else as if it is INTRA VIRES. What appears to be is that the Australian Electoral Commission and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have totally disregarded the rule of law and abused and misused the legal processes to score convictions and otherwise fine people which never was legally justified because once the Magistrate on 4 December 2002 accepted the submission of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that there were indeed constitutional issues to be adjudicated upon then the legislative provisions subject to the objections were clearly ULTRA VIRES and could not be relied upon against any other person either until and unless the High Court of Australia had declared the legislative provisions subject to constitutional objections to be INTRA VIRES. This never occurred. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the legislative provision (it is not law once it is ULTRA VIRES) remained ULTRA VIRES because the High Court of Australia declines to declare it INTRA VIRES then at most a Referendum could provide the kind of legislative powers required to enact such legislation but not retrospective. As such, only legislation passed after such amendment to the Constitution was provided for by a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum could be applied but not made retrospective either. While people often are convicted by retrospective legislation this clearly is contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution, who did not want people acting within the law be made by hindsight criminals. As after all then no one could rely upon what might be the law.
40 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law which is ultra vires.
And Mr. SYMON.-Do you think acquiescence would make a law if the law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament was ultra vires? Mr. GORDON.-It would until the law was impugned. If the state did not impugn that law it would remain in force. It is a law, and it could be allowed to be valid by the force of acquiescence. And Mr. SYMON.-It is not a law if it is ultra vires. Mr. GORDON.-It would be law by acquiescence. It would remain a law until it was attacked.
45
50 And
Mr. HIGGINS.-But suppose they go beyond their power? Mr. GORDON.-It is still the expression of Parliament. Directly a Ministry seeks to enforce improperly any law the citizen has his right. And
55
Mr. GORDON.p56 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Once a law is passed anybody can say that it is being improperly administered, and it leaves open the whole judicial power once the question of ultra vires is raised. END QUOTE 19-7-2006 ADDRESS TO THE COURT -County Court of Victoria
5 Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS: That is not said. Sir JOHN DOWNER: I think that is what it means.
10
Mr. ISAACS: It does not. Sir JOHN DOWNER: What does it mean? Mr. ISAACS: It means that everyone who has a vote under the Commonwealth Bill now shall always be permitted to have that vote. Sir JOHN DOWNER: Always have it?
15
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It does not prevent the State taking it away. Sir JOHN DOWNER: That is not the form of the amendment. Mr. KINGSTON: It is not in the original section. Mr. O'CONNOR: That is worse. If you once give him the right to vote for the Federal Parliament you can never take it away again.
20
Sir GEORGE TURNER: You can always alter it. Sir JOHN DOWNER: Where is the authority for any State to alter its own? Mr. KINGSTON: In each State it is prescribed by the law for the time being of the State. Mr. BARTON: You say no person having the right to vote shall afterwards be deprived of it. Sir JOHN DOWNER: If the amendment now proposed is that no one who has now a vote shall be deprived of it, it deprives both the local Parliament and the Parliament of the Commonwealth from interfering with it, and fixes for all time the absolute and eternal right of everybody who has got a vote now. Surely that is not the intention. Mr. HOLDER: Although I am not willing to accept Sir John Downer's suggestion, I am quite prepared to accept another suggestion, which emanates from Mr. Isaacs, to make the amendment read:
25
30
And no elector possessing the right to vote shall be deprived of that right by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Sir GEORGE TURNER: Hear, hear. Mr. HOLDER: That will leave it still open to the Parliament of any State to take away that right. Sir GEORGE TURNER: No objection to that!
35
Mr. BARTON: Does Mr. Holder mean "elector" at the establishment of the Commonwealth-this is a mere question of conformity of expression-or any elector who at the time of the establishment of the p57 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Commonwealth, or at any time after, shall become entitled to vote, so that any person who at any time after the establishment of the Commonwealth is given the right to vote by a local Parliament-supposing, for instance, an infant of 16 years-shall not be deprived of the right to vote at federal elections by the Federal Parliament?
Mr. HOLDER: I desire that at any time any elector having a right to vote which he had at the time the Commonwealth came into operation, or which he acquired afterwards by State legislation before the Federal Parliament legislates on the subject shall be protected in the exercise of that vote against any action of the Federal Parliament. I am quite wil- [start page 729] ling to leave the matter of form to the Drafting Committee. Sir GEORGE TURNER: We admit the right of the Federal Parliament to declare its own franchise. As soon as it does that it certainly would not be right to allow any State afterwards to alter that franchise, but we claim the right to say to the Federal Parliament: "In declaring that franchise you shall not take from any person or class of persons who have the right to vote that privilege." Mr. HIGGINS: Even for State purposes?
10
15
Sir GEORGE TURNER: We do not interfere with State purposes. We are dealing simply with the Federal Parliament. END QUOTE
It must be clear from this also that Aboriginals were wrongly excluded in the white only 20 voting.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted. Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes. Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. END QUOTE
25
30
35
Obviously the JSCEM and so the parliament can continue to ignore what is constitutionally appropriate or finally it may just realise that all the lawyers in the world will not guarantee that 40 they are right merely because they posess some law degree. After all when one has 100 court cases where each party is represented by a team of lawyers, then where the court has to adjudicate then 100 set of lawyers are found to be wrong and 100 sets of lawyers proven to be right. A 50% success rate. If this was applied to the medical profession doing operations then they would be deemed CHARLETANS. Intelligence doesnt come with a law degree! 45 The term constitutional lawyer is an oxymoron as a lawyers is trained to seek to find loopholes to get a accused client off where as a constitutionalist is not interested in the benefits of a party as the constitution must be held having a constant meaning regardless to which party seeks to rely upon. And, when constitutional lawyers claimed the cross Vesting act was constitutional valid where clearly it was not, as with some other defunct legislation then lawyers 50 do not have any claim on knowing constitutional matters better than an ordinary person. Indeed the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
.
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates p58 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE
.
Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated by the people. END QUOTE
10
15
20 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both. Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
25
30
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
35 Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. END QUOTE
40 So much more to consider but the above alone ought to make it clear the JSCEM, the Parliament and the Federal Government has been defrauded by the AEC time and time again. And you want to say paying a commissioner a reported $800,000.00 for this kind of job is justified? Well, considering the work I did over the years then I should be paid so to say a fortune! Just that 45 I stood my grounds and so supported by the courts because I view that we all are a sentry!
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
50
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a p59 24-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE
5 Members of the JSCEM committee may not appreciate the frankness of my statements but that is just tough luck. Committee members are not there to enjoy themselves but to do a job for and on behalf of the Parliament and I view so far it failed miserably in this at least from my personal experiences.
.
10 We should have a VELVET REVOLUTION (after all we had the education revolution, etc) but one now to reclaim our constitutional and other legal rights, as obviously the Parliament (including the JSCEM), the Government and the Courts are not providing for this!
.
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL 15 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE
20
25
What we need is the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUIARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) a constitutional council that advises the Government, the people, the parliament and the Courts 30 on the true meaning and application of the constitution, and not some body purporting to be constitutional lawyers who time and again fail to understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution. So to say, I proved to make mincemeat of them in court. (CCV 19-7-2006) In case anyone wonders, I am available to take on a position to supervise the AEC! 35 Considering the cost of a re-election in WA and the problems associated with it for the electors, the candidates, etc then one may wonder why no one in the AEC is being held accountable. Can any scrutineer of AEC official just walk out with a bunch of ballot papers without any video recording for this being available? 40 It should be clear that this submission is not intended and neither must be held to be limited in publication as I specifically avoided using names in the submission of any elector/candidate. This submission is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to matter in any order of priority or to all details/issues. I look forwards to your details response, if any courtesy will eventuate as such. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

50
(
Our name is our motto!)

20140224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To JSCEM

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

20140224-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To JSCEM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

5 PO Box 6021 PARLIAMENT HOUSE ACT 2600

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion 5

That was in 1981. But since then we have; 20

Section 387 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

388 Averments deemed to be proved 5

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr Dacey- No, Senator. END QUOTE

15 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

10 156 Date of nomination

20 158 Polling to be on a Saturday

2013 Federal Election Timetable

Return of Writs (latest date)

In practice, the House is likely to meet in late October or early November.

Victorian Consolidated Legislation CREDIT ACT 1984 - SECT 162

Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

will take that action by publishing a proclamation

QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

IN RE WOOD (1988) 167 CLR 145 F.C. 88/018 END QUOTE 5

Where and how can the validity of a Proclamation be challenged? 50

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

10 Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Your reference; 05101011

John, I don't bother to vote for any of the dishonest grubs in

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 354

QUOTE 26-7-2005 CORRESPONDENCE

END QUOTE 26-7-2005 CORRESPONDENCE

END QUOTE part of the 1-8-2005 CORRESPONDENCE

Article 25 30 (For general comments on its implementation see

20 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)

You might also like