20150625-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Tony Abbott Re TPP-TiSA, TTIP - Political Liberty-Etc

1
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mr Tony Abbott PM
25-6-2015
josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc:
AFL
C/o Gillon McLachlan general@afl.com.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Herald Sun Andrew Bolt news@heraldsun.com.au, readerfeedback@heraldsun.com.au
Mark Robinson mark.robinson@news.com.au Jay Clark jay.clark@news.com.au
Ref; 20150625-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott Re TPP-TiSA, TTIP -Political Liberty-etc
Tony,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I wish to express my concerns as to the reported secrecy of
the TPP, TiSA, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP, which covers Europe)
and any other agreement that may undermine the rights and entitlements of Australians.
Obviously to explain my position to some degree I will have to quote Hansard as to the
intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and other authorities.
The Framers of the Constitution did make it very clear:
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
This is that many legal principles embedded in the constitution (Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act
1900
(UK)) are not known unless one as myself being a
CONSTITUTIONALIST carefully examine the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.
Consider the following:
40
45
50
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
p1
25-6-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
2
Therefore, the politicians in the Commonwealth of Australia cannot willy nilly do may desire to
do, this as they are elected to represent their respective constituents. Each and every one of them
is elected to the Parliament to represent their constituents and not just themselves.
As much as a person may engage a lawyer in court to represent the person for certain issues in
litigation, the lawyer then cannot out of the blue somehow make any agreement with the other
party about matters such as what his/her client may eat for breakfast if this is not an issue in the
litigation itself.
When politicians are elected then the elector must have been able to make an informed
decision who to vote for and not that the candidate has hidden agendas that may for example be
repulsive to the constituents. Hence, candidates ought to disclose their intentions as a candidate
what they propose to do if elected.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE
.
Hence, any purported COAG (Council of Australian Government) decisions such as regarding
any treaties neither can be held applicable to undermine the constitutional rights enshrined in the
Constitution.
.
The following indicates that the Framers of the Constitution when it came to citizenship
(which is not nationality, but where a person resides) then the USA meaning was deemed to be
applicable.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-It is as follows:No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
35
40
45
50
55
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is the Tasmanian amendment.

Mr. ISAACS.-Yes, it has been adapted by than Tasmanian Assembly to suit our altered circumstances but I
want to point out that it only became necessary to pass that 14th amendment in the United States in order to
provide in the Constitution for the change that was wrought by the Civil War. The rights of citizenship for the
blacks and the abolition of slavery had been won by hard fighting, and this Article 14 had to be rammed down
the throats of the Southern States by the military provision which I referred, to in Sydney. This, together with
the 15th article, which goes with it, had to be passed. The object of it was as I have stated, and that was
recognised by the United States courts in the case of Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 United States Reports,
page 303. We can understand that a Constitution should say who shall be citizens of the United States or
citizens of the Commonwealth. We can also understand that having constituted a citizenship of the
nation, no state should be permitted to abridge that citizenship, and take away any of the privileges or
immunities pertaining to citizens. What are these privileges and immunities? That very question was dealt
with in what are known as the Slaughter House cases in 1872,16 Wallace, 36, and in certain other cases. This
is what the court saidThe right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, to
come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the Government, to transact any
business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its
functions, free access to its sea ports through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, also to
the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice of the several states. Another privilege of a citizen of the
United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal Government for his life, liberty, and
property when on the high seas, or within the jurisdiction of a foreign country; the right to peaceably
p2
25-6-2015
3
assemble and petition for redress of grievances; the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the right to use the
navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several states, and all
rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations; and the right of a citizen of the United States
of his own volition to become a citizen of any state of the Union by bona fide residence therein.
10
15
20
25
END QUOTE
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
And
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
Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their present constitution second
to none in the world. When the
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
question of a second chamber comes to be considered, they will assuredly not be satisfied to possess less
freedom. More than this. In framing a federal constitution, we should set out with the explicit claim to
possess and exercise all the rights and privileges of citizens of the British empire to the same extent
that they are possessed and exercised by our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain itself. Australia is
entitled to absolute enfranchisement. In our union we attain political manhood and the stature of a fullgrown democracy.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
The people of this continent were not landed upon its shore to-day ignorant of the responsibilities of selfgovernment. They have amply proved in the past that they are entitled to be trusted with all the powers
appertaining to a free people. They have believed that they enjoyed freedom [start page 86] under their
present constitution second to none in the world.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN:
We know the tendency is always towards the central authority, that the central authority constitutes
a sort of vortex to which power gradually attaches itself. Therefore, all the buttresses and all the ties
should be the other way, to assist those who uphold the rights of the states from being drawn into this
central authority, and from having their powers finally destroyed. The whole history of federation in
America, whether it be the United States or Canada, has proved this: that the tendency is towards
centralisation, and away from that local government which is inseparable from freedom. I have
heard it said that those who advocate state rights are taking a conservative view of the question. I
would like to know since what time have centralisation and democracy been associated? Those who
advocate state rights advocate local government, under whose shadow alone democracy can exist.
There is nothing in common between centralisation and democracy, and if you handicap a house,
which is erected, to preserve state rights, what have you to prevent the establishment, in this huge
island of Australia, of a strong central government which is local only to one portion of the continent,
and as far as the rest of the continent is concerned is distant and central? I maintain that a central
government, just inasmuch as it never can be associated with the power of the people, is inseparably
associated with tyranny, arising either from ignorance or design-frequently from ignorance-because
p3
25-6-2015
20
a central and distant government can never properly appreciate the local conditions for which it is to
legislate. I [start page 708] am surprised that any one in this Convention should for one moment say
that to strengthen in every way the rights of the states, as such-to protect in every way the local
institutions-is the conservative mission. The whole history of federation has proved it is otherwise. It
was in the name of state rights, when the question of the Constitution of America was being
discussed, that the most fervent appeals to liberty that ever stirred the human breast were made, and
all those opposed to state rights were the conservatives, the monarchists of that time. The strongest
upholders of state rights from time to time have been those in favour of government by the people,
and it is only when you have state rights properly guarded, and safeguard local government, that you
can have government by the people. Government at a central and distant part is never government
by the people, and may be just as crushing a tyranny under republican or commonwealth forms as
under the most absolute monarchy. I do hope that hon. members will not allow themselves to be
hoodwinked in this matter. It seems that the crushing majority in favour of the state rights that are
essential to federation, which we had at the commencement of this discussion, has dwindled away. I
maintain that unless the state rights are in every way maintained-unless buttresses are placed to
enable them to stand up against the constant drawing towards centralisation-no federation can ever
take root in Australia. It will not be a federation at all. It will be from the very start a centralisation,
a unification, which, instead of being a guardian of the liberty of the people, will be its most distinct
tyrant, and eventually will overcome it.
END QUOTE
25

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: Local freedom and government by the people are inseparable.
END QUOTE
10
15
Local government is meaning state government whereas central government is federal

government.
30
Constituents cannot be given an informed decision to vote if candidates are having a hidden
agenda, such as to negotiate some treaty that may be harmful to the constituents. Hence,
Politicians and so in particular Ministers cannot enter into secret negotiations without the general
public being aware what is proposed that may negatively affect them.
Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
o Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349.
35
o Ex malificio non oritur contractus. A contract cannot arise out of an act radically wrong and illegal.
Broom's Max. 851.
o Ex nudo pacto non oritur action. No actions arise on a naked contract without a consideration. See
Nudum Pactum.
40
45
50
Ex turpi causa non oritur action. No action arises out of an immoral consideration.
o
o Ex turpi contractu non oritur actio. No action arises on an immoral contract.
o Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
o Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never agree together. Wing. 680.
o
o Qui inique non erit aequi - He who has committed iniquity, shall not have equity. Francis' Max.,
Max. 2.
. ..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution

to give effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the
judiciary, including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the
makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that
intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people
p4
25-6-2015
5
long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree
that those decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.
5
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the
search for the intention of its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim,
HCA27\99)
R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915)
QUOTE
10
15
20
25
The first question is as to the competence of the Australian Parliament to make the provisions of the Crimes
Act 1915 (No. 6 of 1915) retrospective. By sec. 2 it is enacted (by way of amendment of the Crimes Act 1914)
that any person who conspires with any other person "to defraud the Commonwealth" shall be guilty of an
indictable offence; the penalty attached being imprisonment for three years or less. By sec. 3 it is enacted "This
Act shall be deemed to have been in force from the date of the commencement of the Crimes Act 1914" (29th
October 1914). There is, therefore, no doubt as to the intention of the Parliament to make a conspiracy to
defraud the Commonwealth between 29th October 1914 and 7th May 1915 (the date of the commencement of
the Crimes Act 1915) an indictable offence. There is no doubt that the Act of 1915 was meant to be
retrospective; and therefore the numerous cases which lay down the principle of construction against
retrospective or retroactive operation are inapplicable. If the Act were an Act of the British Parliament with its
plenary powers, the principle of construction must yield to the clearly expressed intention of the Legislature.
But the question as to the power of the Federal Parliamenta Parliament which has no power to legislate
except as to specified subjectsto legislate retrospectively, remains. For the purpose of the question I may
assumewithout in any way deciding the pointthat, apart from the Act No. 6, a conspiracy to defraud the
Commonwealth does not constitute a criminal offence within the State law or otherwise.
END QUOTE
The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to
federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.taxtactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
30
35
40
45
50
55
QUOTE
37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the
principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into
which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes
the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be
in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in
reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies
no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede
any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is
superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
END QUOTE
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence 2d; SS: 256 & 257:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective
for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date
of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
p5
25-6-2015
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the
statute not been enacted. 'Such an unconstitutional law is void', the general principles follow that it imposes
no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection,
and justifies no acts preformed under it . . . 'A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs
counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. 'No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." . . . The fact that one acts in reliance on a
statute which has theretofore been adjudged unconstitutional does not protect him from civil or criminal
responsibility ....
10
15
20
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
In my opinion, the words 'false evidence' in s79A(1) do not mean evidence which is wilfully false. The subsection should be read according to its terms. To say that 'false evidence should be read as 'wilful false
evidence' is to introduce a provision not expressed by the provision; cf s6H of the Royal Commission Act
1902 which speaks of a witness 'who knowingly gives false testimony'. This interpretation is reinforced by
reference elsewhere in s79A(1) to the separate grounds of fraud and suppression of evidence which
would comprehend cases of wilful false evidence. At common law, a judgment will be set aside if it
has been obtained by fraud. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it has been held that an applicant must
show something more than perjury, ie. new facts (Baker v. Wadsworth [1898] 67 LJQB 301; Everett V.
Ribbands [1946] 175 LT 143). This tends to suggest that the words 'false evidence' should be given their
literal meaning
END QUOTE
And
25
30
Taylor v. Taylor (1979) Fam LR 5, 289289 at 290 298 and 300 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUOTE
In my opinion, the jurisdiction extends not only to the setting aside of judgments which have been obtained
without service or notice to a party (Craig v. Kanssen [1943] KB 256 at 262 - 263) but to the setting aside
of a default or ex-parte judgment obtained when the absence of the party is due to no fault on his part. I can
find no indication in the Family Law Act of an intention to displace this inherent jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
.
35
QUOTE Penfold and Penfold (1980) 5 FLR at 579 High Court

Presentation of a false Statement of Financial Circumstances, which puts the other party to trouble and
expense of disproving it is a circumstance which justifies an order for costs.
END QUOTE
.
40
QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270

Suppression of relevant evidence
END QUOTE
.
45
QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by
actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is
not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
50
55
60
END QUOTE
Therefore if candidates for an election are concealing their intentions from the electors and so are
elected upon deception then not only their election must be deemed in valid but also any conduct
engaged in as result of this deception/fraud becomes null and void.
.

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
p6
25-6-2015
7
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
.
This means that any official who participate in this fraud would also be liable as to misprision to
fraud.
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN:
10
15
The people of Victoria are under many obligations to their distinguished Chief Justice and especially for his
judgment in this suit, in which he has displayed the acumen of the lawyer, the eloquence of the orator, and
the grasp of the statesman. Chief Justice Higinbotham said:
It was the intention of the Legislative Council to provide a complete system of responsible
government in and for Victoria, and that intention was carried into full legislative effect with the
knowledge and approval and at the instance of the Imperial Government by the "Constitution Statute,"
passed by the Imperial Parliament.
He was supported in his opinion by Mr. Justice Kerferd, who for some time was Attorney-General of
Victoria. Mr. Justice Kerferd said:
20
All the prerogatives necessary for the safety and protection of the people, the administration of the law, and
the conduct of public affairs in and for Victoria, under our system of responsible government, have passed
as an incident to the grant of self-government (without which the grant itself would be of no effect) and
may be exercised by the representative of the Crown in the advice of responsible ministers.
These two quotations embody the belief which was held until lately in Victoria; the majority of our own
Supreme Court overruled this reading. Mr. Justice Williams said:
25
30
I have been for years in common with, I believe, very many others, under the delusion (as I must term it)
that we enjoyed in this colony responsible government in the proper sense of the term. I awake to find, as
far as my opinion goes, that we have merely an instalment of responsible government.
Mr. Justice Holroyd considers that we have only a measure of self-government, and two other judges
concur. My colleague, Mr. Wrixon, who argued the case with great force and ability before the Privy
Council, says:
If the reading put by the Supreme Court in Victoria upon our Constitution Act be correct, then not
only in the colony of Victoria, but in all the groups of Australasian colonies, the governments which
we now enjoy are without warrant of law.
35
40
45
That is a strong statement, and the judgment of the majority of our Supreme Court justifies me in asserting
that this Convention cannot too soon face the issue involved in it. I take it that the people of Australasia will
not be satisfied with any "instalment" or any "measure" of responsible government, or any limitations,
except such as are necessary to the unity of the empire. We claim, without shadow of doubt or vestige of
qualification, all the powers and privileges possessed by Englishmen. The governor-general, as
representative of the Queen in these federated colonies, should be clothed by statute with all the powers
which should belong to the representative of her Majesty; he should be above all risk of attack, because he
should act only on the advice of responsible ministers, who should be prepared either to obtain the
sanction of Parliament for their acts or vacate office. Parliament, in its turn, should be brought into
intimate relation with the electorates. This is true, popular government.
END QUOTE
As such when Treasurer Joe (smoking) Hockey failed to have in 2014 the Appropriation and
Taxation Bills passed he should have resigned. That is what a responsible Minister was to do!
50

QUOTE
Mr. O'CONNOR: It comes under the same principle as Money Bills. The borrowed money has to be
spent.
p7
25-6-2015
8
Mr. WISE: It may be a more effective engine of corruption in the spending of loan money in different
localities, and may cause more serious trouble than perhaps the appropriation of the consolidated revenue. I
pass now to the consideration of the proper steps to be taken in the event of there being a hopeless deadlock
between the two Houses; and I would preface my remarks by expressing a doubt as to whether it is after all
necessary to provide any way out of a deadlock. Is it historically true with regard to these colonies at at any
rate that deadlocks have always proved disadvantageous to a community in which they occur? Is there not a
good deal to be said, and truly said, in favor of the view that deadlocks have too often occurred from an
undue exercise of power which was not always approved of by the people. There is another consideration of a
more general character which must never be forgotten, that there is only one way after all to absolutely avoid
a deadlock, and that is to create a despot. If you have the government of a single man, a deadlock cannot
possibly occur, but I understand a deadlock is the price we and every free country have to pay for the benefit
of constitutional government. If you have constitutional government there must always be some risk of the
powers-the counter-balancing powers-that constitute a Government falling out of gear, but the true remedy,
as proved by experience, is to trust to the self-governing instincts which the British possess, the sense of
justice, and the power of public opinion. At the same time there can be no question that in entering upon a
Federation we are introducing a new element, and the proposal that was made by Mr. O'Connor does
certainly appear to me to be open to the objections raised by Sir Graham Berry, whose interjection was not
answered. Mr. O'Connor proposed that if the interests of a majority of States were so seriously affected
that the States Assemby felt it its duty to throw out the Appropriation Bill, and thus cause a temporary
stoppage of the machinery of Government, then the two Houses should take a vote per capita, and the
question should be resolved by a majority of both Houses. It was asked by Sir George Turner-Suppose
you had a minority in the Lower House which was turned into a majority by the reinforcement it received
from those of a similar way of thinking in the Assembly of the States? And Mr. O'Connor replied that in that
case the will of the States Assembly would prevail. "And what then?" asked Sir Graham Berry, but the
question was not answered. How could the Ministry carry on if it found itself in a minority in the Lower
House? I fail to see any answer to it.
10
15
20
25
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would not be a majority in that House; it would be a minority. No minority in
the House of Representatives, coupled with a majority in the States Assembly, should override a majority in
the House of Representatives which gave its confidence to the Ministry.
30
Mr. WISE: Exactly so. If the Appropriation Bill is not passed what is the Ministry to do?
HON. MEMBERS? Resign.
Mr. WISE: What is the next Ministry to do?
Sir GEORGE TURNER: They must go to the people.
Mr. O'CONNOR: My answer was that they must go to the country.
35
Mr. WISE: Then what becomes of the theory of responsible government? This [start page 111] is one point
in which in actual practice the theory of responsible government may be altered. It does not appear that the
suggestion of Sir George Turner to avoid a deadlock gets over the difficulty, because if you refer the matter
to a referendum, and a referendum be taken of the States, the assumption is that the matter is referred to the
referendum because the interests of a majority of the States are so seriously affected that their representatives
threw out the Appropriation Bill; the probability is that the representatives actually represented the opinions
of their States, so that the referendum, unless the State senators misrepresent the opinion of the State, will
lead to precisely the same result After all we are driven, for my part somewhat reluctantly, to a state of
absolute uncertainty as to whether there is any possible way out of a deadlock.
40
45
END QUOTE
Consider also the following:

.
50
55

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this Constitution is
responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any way that guarantee.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p8
25-6-2015
Mr. HIGGINS.-According to one suggestion, you must go to the Parliament, [start page 984] but in most
cases, if there is any question of policy involved, the consent of the Governor-General in Council will be
discussed in Parliament. It will be raised on motion in Parliament, and it will be a matter for the
parliamentary majority to support him or not. Constitutionally, he will not give his consent unless he is
in the majority.
Mr. REID.-What will be the position if the Governor-General in Council approves and the Parliament
disapproves?
Mr. HIGGINS.-I apprehend the effect will be that the Federal Parliament will be able to pass a law which
will over-ride this particular grant.
10
Mr. REID.-That is not the object of the amendment.

Mr. SYMON.-Would not the effect of your amendment be to make the Federal High Court sit in
judgment on an executive act of the Governor-General in Council?
Mr. HIGGINS.-With all respect, no. The Governor-General in Council, as the honorable member
knows as well as any one, has to obey the law as well as every one else.
15
Mr. SYMON.-But suppose the Governor-General in Council grants the bonus, and suppose its operation
derogates from freedom of trade, then the Federal High Court will sit in judgment on an act of the GovernorGeneral in Council which involves a question of policy.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Does not the honorable member recognise that even the legislation of the Federal
Parliament is subject to the decision of the Federal High Court?
20
Mr. SYMON.-But not a question of executive administrative policy.

Mr. HIGGINS.-The Federal High Court goes still further than that. It has the function of deciding
whether the Acts of the Parliament are valid or not, and why should it not have the function of
deciding whether the acts of the Ministry are valid or not?
Mr. SYMON.-That was not the intention in determining the functions of the Federal High Court.
25
Mr. HIGGINS.-Our British system is that every official under Her Majesty is amenable to the lawthat everybody is under the law.
Mr. SYMON.-But this is a question of Ministerial responsibility.
30
Mr. HIGGINS.-Of course it is; but supposing the Ministry were to consent to a bonus or bounty which
interfered with freedom of trade, then the Federal High Court could be asked to interfere, and it therefore has
the ultimate decision of the matter. If the court decided against a bonus or bounty, I rather think that the
money would have to be refunded.
Mr. SYMON.-Supposing the House of Representatives approves of the action of the Ministry, and the
Federal High Court dissents?
35
Mr. HIGGINS.-Well, as the Federal High Court has to determine, in case of dispute, whether the Acts of
the Parliament are wrong, so the court has to decide whether the acts of the Ministry are wrong. All this
bringing in of the Federal High Court-I do not say in the mind of the honorable member, but in the minds of
several honorable members-is with a view to make this particular proposal unpopular. I do not want to drag in
the Federal High Court.
Mr. SYMON.-But can you help it?
40
Mr. HIGGINS.-I say that, in 99 out of 100 cases, the Federal High Court, will not be appealed to; but
if you ask me what body is to have the ultimate determination of the matter, I say the Federal High
Court must be that body.
END QUOTE
45

QUOTE Mr. MACROSSAN:
p9
25-6-2015
10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
As to the ministry being responsible to both houses, I think that is an utter impossibility. I do not see
how a ministry can be held in any way to be responsible to both houses of parliament, especially as one
of those houses is to have a continuity of existence. If the senate was to be placed on the same footing as
the house of representatives, and was to be dissolved on the same occasions, there might be something
in the proposal. But as it will have a continuous life, and as whatever definite responsibility it may have
will be through the nominations of the legislatures of the different states, I do not see how a federal
ministry can be responsible to any house but the house of representatives.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted responsible government
in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many words. We must have some regard to the
instrument we are framing, and we ought to look upon it as a Constitution with plenty of elasticity,
under which all the constitutional usages will apply and be interpreted. If the Commandant was a kind
of Jack-in-office, and wanted to run his army where he ought not to, you could dismiss him. If the
Governor-General interfered unduly you would have to say respectfully-"You must not interfere in
these matters; if you do, we shall repeal the Act, and there will be no army; you will be Commander-inChief merely nominally." I hope the words will not be inserted.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: What is the way to do it I am not now considering. But I hope I am not
misunderstood in calling attention to that difficulty as likely to arise. I believe myself that the system which
we call responsible government is the best that has yet been invented in the history of the world for carrying
on the good government of the people, and I hope that it will be instituted in the Federal Government of
Australia. But, at the same time, I desire to point out the great possibility-almost probability-that that
system, as we have it at the present time, if we insist upon members of the executive being members of
the legislature, and insist upon their commanding always a majority in one house of the legislature,
may not work. We have to devise a constitution that will work, that will have within its bounds sufficient
scope to allow of any development.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: As a possible working out in time. I do admit that there is a great deal of force in the
suggestion that there are certain phases of constitutional development which, to a great extent, must be left to
the working-to that which express provisions will evolve from themselves, rather than to attempt to define
them too strictly at the outset; but I fail to see how the working of any such constitution as is likely to be
framed will result in a limited ministerial responsibility of that kind. I take it that we [start page 99] shall be
shut up to the choice of one of two things, the American system of dissociation of the executive, or the
adhering to that which we individually have found to work as well as anything else can work in the present
stage of political development, that is, the ordinary principle of constitutional government. In that respect I
think that, irrespective of any question of a referendum, which I have heard suggested, we shall find ourselves
safer in relying on the old lines of constitutional responsibility at the hands of one chamber, although it
may not take unto itself the whole of the representative principle, than we shall be by attempting either to
weld two chambers together for executive purposes-which I think would be a clumsy expedient-or by
venturing upon the dissociation of the executive from the representative body, the segregation of ministers
from parliament, resulting, as we know it has resulted elsewhere, in a body of ministers not possessing indeed
the whole executive power, and whose working is hampered to this extent: that, being individually amenable
to a president, they are only in the very slightest degree animated by a common policy so far as regards their
common action. That is a state of things which I do not think would conduce to good government, and I
therefore think, notwithstanding the embodiment of the federal principle in our second chamber,
notwithstanding the embodiment of a proportion of the representation of the country in it, we must give up the
idea that we are to dissociate our executive from our parliament. We shall be much safer in taking our
stand upon the solid constitutional ground of responsibility to one house alone. And there is a reason for
it in this case to be found in this way: that the chamber to which it is proposed that ministers should be
responsible, is that chamber which is most charged with the conservation of the general rights of which the
executive is the exponent: that is to say, viewing the federal executive in its distinction from the various
executives of the provinces, the chamber which has most to do with the conservation of the powers and
p10
25-6-2015
11
10
15
20
25
functions of that executive, and within the lines of which it will oftenest act in its relation to the individuals of
the state, will be the house of representatives; and if we work upon that line, I think we shall find it to be,
perhaps, by no very great stretch of principle a decided gain in the working of our political system, and we
shall find it possible to conserve the principle of ministerial responsibility, and responsibility to that house
alone.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
. I quite admit that the United States system suits them; and if we are simply going to form a republic,
and to establish an institution in which the executive will not be in Parliament, and will not be
responsible, the state of affairs will be totally different. But I am contemplating that this Convention has in
view the formation of true responsible government.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
We have come here to frame a constitution, and the instructions that were given to us, I am happy to
say, are very clearly laid down by the hon. member, Mr. Baker, in the book which he was good enough
to distribute amongst us. He puts it in this form: That it is desirable there should be a union of the
Australian colonies. That is one of the principles that has already been settled by all our parliaments. Second,
that such union should be an early one-that is, that we should remove all difficulties in the way in order that
the union should take place at as early a date as possible. Third, that it should be under the Crown. Now, I
am quite sure that is one of the most important conditions of all with which we have to deal-that the union
that is to take place shall be a union under the Crown. Fourth, that it should be under one legislative and
executive government. That also is laid down by our various parliaments.
END QUOTE
.
30
35
40
45

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line
would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of
responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child
of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the
liberties of our people-then,
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start page 2092] Higgins)
may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision the practice of the High Court, when
declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a declaration applied only to the part which trespassed
beyond the limits of the Constitution. If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the
interpretation of the whole of the Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
50
55
60

QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains some remnant of
parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack each other's laws.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the
Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
p11
25-6-2015
12
END QUOTE
10
Therefore we have a responsible government who cannot have any legislation to purportedly
support some kind of treaty to be passed in secrecy, as the Parliament is bound to pass an y Bills
where electors are aware as to the content of what is placed before the Parliament, so they can
alert their elected representatives as to their concerns.
In Macleod Lord Halsbury L.C. quoted (at p 458) the remarks of Parke B. in Jefferys v. Boosey (at p 926 of HLC (p
725 of ER)):
QUOTE
(T)he Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-born
subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom.
END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
30

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
.
35
40
45
50
55

QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
What we therefore have to consider is if the Commonwealth of Australia can enter in to treaties
and enforce them by law against citizens in the Commonwealth of Australia where the rights of
corporations being overseas or not were to be greater than those of citizens. And if such
corporations could litigate matters then outside the Commonwealth of Australia before foreign
courts to seek to undermine any kind of Australian legislation:
It is my views that the Commonwealth cannot give special treatment to foreign or local
companies, etc, as to gain a greater right then citizens in the Commonwealth of Australia may
have. As such if the Federal Government were to sign a treaty to allow foreign companies to sue
the Commonwealth of Australia where any future government were to legislate against their
interest then I view this in itself would be unconstitutional because no government can in any
future Parliament to be denied of its legislative powers which effectively such a treaty would
amount to.
.
p12
25-6-2015
13
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
75 Original jurisdiction of High Court
5
10
15
20
In all matters:
(i) arising under any treaty;
(ii) affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;
(iii) in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued
on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party;
(iv) between States, or between residents of different States, or
between a State and a resident of another State;
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction
is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
76 Additional original jurisdiction

The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on
the High Court in any matter:
(i) arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation;
(ii) arising under any laws made by the Parliament;
(iii) of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
(iv) relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws of
different States.
77 Power to define jurisdiction

25
30
With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two

sections the Parliament may make laws:
(i) defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the
High Court;
(ii) defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal
court shall be exclusive of that which belongs to or is
invested in the courts of the States;
(iii) investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction.
78 Proceedings against Commonwealth or State

35
The Parliament may make laws conferring rights to proceed

against the Commonwealth or a State in respect of matters within
the limits of the judicial power.
END QUOTE
40
In my view the Commonwealth cannot remove the Original jurisdiction of the High Court of
Australia by purportedly allow a foreign company to seek compensation against the
Commonwealth of Australia and/or any state/Territory or any person in a foreign court, where
this falls within the above mentioned sections of the constitution.
45
Then also consider
50
55
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

QUOTE Dr. QUICK.The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
Therefore any treaty cannot be enforced against citizens unless the Commonwealth of Australia
has the constitutional legislative powers to do so. If therefore for example the Commonwealth
were to legislate that (say) Australians are not permitted to become carpenters, then this would be
p13
25-6-2015
14
outside the Commonwealths legislative powers and any treaty for this would in that regard be
null and void.
5
10
15
20
As a trademark holder of MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL and INSPECTORRIKATI I recognise the Commonwealth could engage in treaties regarding trademarks, but
only for so far it doesnt provide superior rights for foreign or other companies above that I
possess. As such the Commonwealth couldnt undermine my existing rights or even future rights
as to give special benefits to foreign nations, its companies and/or citizens.
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
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-You cannot impose exceptional treatment upon the citizens of another state; that applies
to everything.
END QUOTE
.
25
30
35

QUOTE
Mr. KINGSTON.-How would you define the word "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-I do not think that it is necessary to frame a definition of "citizen." A citizen is one who
is entitled to the immunities of citizenship. In short, a citizen is a citizen. I do not think you require a
definition, of "citizen" any more than you require a definition of "man" or "subject."
Mr. ISAACS.-Would you include a corporation in the term "citizen"?
Mr. SYMON.-Why not?
Mr. ISAACS.-Well, in America they do not.
Mr. SYMON.-I do not see why a corporation existing in one colony should not have the rights of a
corporation in another colony. Otherwise you defeat the objects of this Constitution.
[start page 1783]
Mr. ISAACS.-I agree that that ought to be so, but the word "citizen" will not include a corporation.
Mr. SYMON.-Well, in my opinion it should. I
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
40
Mr. OCONNOR.-He could not be entitled to greater or less privileges than the inhabitants of the
state itself.
END QUOTE
45
50
55
60
Therefore any trade agreement must be carefully scrutinised as to be within the true meaning and
application of the constitution as otherwise the Commonwealth could discover that certain parts
may be held by the High Court of Australia to be unconstitutional.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
p14
25-6-2015
15
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. O'CONNOR:
The very principle of the Federal Constitution is this: that the Constitution is above both Houses of
Parliament. That is the difference between it and our Houses of Parliament now. The Federal Parliament
must be above both Houses of Parliament, and they must conform to it, because it is in the charter
under which union takes place, and the guarantee of rights under which union takes place; and, unless
you have some authority for them to interpret [start page 592] that, what guarantee have you for
preserving their rights at all. It is very necessary to insert this provision in the Constitution, because if you
do not do that then these questions are questions of procedure between the two Houses in which undue
pressure may be brought to bear at any time on one House or other for the purpose of vetoing a law and doing
injustice to the States represented in that House in the different ways in which the States are represented. As
to the inconvenience, there are thirty-two different subjects of legislation here which may be dealt with by the
federal authority, and in regard to any one of these if an error is made which takes the law outside the
authority which is given to the federal power it is invalid-absolutely void-no matter what inconvenience may
follow.
Mr. ISAACS: That is not a rule of procedure; that is jurisdiction.
45
END QUOTE
QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
50
55
I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.
The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
p15
25-6-2015
16
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
better not be left out of the bill altogether.
The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.
10
Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
And clearly the judiciary which includes obviously the High Court of Australia is bound to
interpret the intentions of the framers of the constitution and cannot willy nilly adjudicate on
their own contemporary views.
If the Court desires something else then it is up to the electors by way of referendum to amend
the constitution but it is not and never was the authority of judges to meddle with the true
meaning and application of the constitution and therefore must obey the true meaning and
application of the constitution as was applicable at the time the constitution and/or any
amendment to the constitution was intended.
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We can only prescribe a minimum, at all events, so that there shall be a strong guarantee to the
Commonwealth, when it comes into operation, that there shall be a bench of such ability as we can secure,
and in which we can all place confidence in the fairness and impartiality of its decisions as to the meaning of
this Constitution and every part of it.
END QUOTE
.

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
For the above I vied that while negotiations itself may be dealt with in confidentiality as long as
they are and remain within the powers of the Federal Government to do so and do not go in
violation of the true meaning and application of the constitution, any debate/votes in the Houses
of Parliament cannot be dealt with in secret because the electors are entitled to know what is
being debated in the Parliament so they can check their representatives about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-againstus.html?_r=0
QUOTE
The Trans-Pacific Partnership a cornerstone of Mr. Obamas remaining economic agenda would grant
broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the
accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to
challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings federal, state or local before
tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
END QUOTE
p16
25-6-2015
17
Clearly no tribunal organized under the World Bank or the United Nations could interfere with
the ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia.
The Parliament and neither the government due to separation of powers have no power to
interfere with the judicial powers of the High Court of Australia provided for within the
constitution.
WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374
QUOTE
10
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of
tyranny.
END QUOTE
Wonderland World of Fast-tracked Secret Trade Agreements
By Ellen Brown <http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/ellen-brown>
Global Research, June 22, 2015
15
20
25
QUOTE
Fast-track authority is being sought in the Senate this week for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), along
with the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) and any other such trade agreements coming down the pike in
the next six years. The terms of the TPP and the TiSA are so secret that drafts of the negotiations are to
remain classified for four years
END QUOTE
The following is from my submissions before the County Court of Victoria exercising federal
jurisdiction on 19 July 2006 in which I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of
Australia (regarding the charges FAILING TO VOTE) without any of my submissions having
been challenged by the Commonwealth of Australia and/or any other State/Territorial AttorneyGeneral.
ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
30
35
40
45
50
55
WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;

Such as:
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means
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 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
p17
25-6-2015
18
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)
10
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)
15
20
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.
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)
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
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 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)
END QUOTE
I TRUST THAT FOR THE ABOVE the Federal Government will be more open about matters
as after all with a federal election is due by latest in 2016 and well where the ALP already was
negotiating in secret then having concealed what was going in may work against them when
electors become aware of matters and if the current government does continue with secrecy in a
manner to undermine the rights of citizens as to the true meaning and application of the
constitution then it may also befall the same problems as the former government had been
inflicted.
p18
25-6-2015
19
The issue is not if the Commonwealth of Australia has treaty powers but rather if what is being
debated regarding any treaties is within the powers of the Commonwealth of Australia to do so!
Ministers and their officials involved in any unconstitutional conduct could clearly find
themselves personally liable for damages if sued by foreign corporations.
.
10
15

QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
As for treaty powers such as with Aboriginals and/or Torres Strait Islanders, well I view no such
treaty powers exist and as such all and any such treaties are null and void. This as well as that
such purported treaties are in direct violation of ss51(xxvi). But that is an issue for another time\.
20
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p19
25-6-2015

20150625-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Tony Abbott Re TPP-TiSA, TTIP - Political Liberty-Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20150625-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Tony Abbott Re TPP-TiSA, TTIP - Political Liberty-Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-That is the Tasmanian amendment.

Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Local government is meaning state government whereas central government is federal

o Ex turpi contractu non oritur actio. No action arises on an immoral contract.

o Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.

. ..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution

QUOTE Penfold and Penfold (1980) 5 FLR at 579 High Court

QUOTE R.V. Crimmins (1959) VR 270

QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343

QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution convention Debates

Consider also the following:

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. REID.-That is not the object of the amendment.

Mr. SYMON.-But not a question of executive administrative policy.

Hansard 17-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

76 Additional original jurisdiction

77 Power to define jurisdiction

With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two

78 Proceedings against Commonwealth or State

The Parliament may make laws conferring rights to proceed

Then also consider

Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374;

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

You might also like