Governor General's Legal Position

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Mrs Q. Bryce 21-1-2010 Office of the Governor-General governor-general@gg.gov.au . AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN . The issue of legal position of the Governor-General, etc . Madam, As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it is of concern to me that there appear to be a considerable misconception as to the powers, functions, duties and rights, etc associated with the Office of the Governor-General. This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all relevant issues as my published books set out matters in far greater details. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I expose the real application of the constitution, and as set out below the Constitution Commission 1988 Report assumed certain legislative powers even so none as such were included in the constitution for this! . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. END QUOTE . This correspondence will also be published by me in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues and as such have included at times lengthy quotations so that besides you the reader can become familiar with what the Framers of the Constitution debated. . Some basic are that constitutionally there is a provision for a Governor-General, and the Governor-General is the appointed representative, under whatever title, of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the British Empire also now referred to of the United Kingdom, etc. . Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).We have no right, in this Constitution, to dictate to Her Majesty to who shall be her agent. Her Majesty has a right to pick such agent as she thinks fit in any part of the colony, and we have no right to say-"You shall not do so and so." END QUOTE .
21-1-2010 Page 1 PLEASE NOTE : Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. HACKETT: I observe that the last line and a half is a virtual adoption of part of a clause in the American Constitution; but the President there is practically never absent from the seat of government. This clause, however, would allow the governor-general to draw his full salary during a year's leave of absence; and I would point out that that leave of absence rests with the authorities in Downing-street. The clause, therefore, would allow the Colonial Office to arrange that the governor-general should draw his full salary during a year's absence, when an administrator would have to be appointed in his place, who would have to be paid a large salary for doing the work. Who would pay him? An HON. MEMBER: The governor-general! Clause, as amended, agreed to. . The Framers of the Constitution made it abundantly clear that the Governor-General has only prerogative powers within the Commonwealth of Australia and not beyond. As such, the moment the Governor-General travels outside the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Australia then he/she must have appointed a deputy who for the time of the absenteeism executes all duties and obligations ordinary associated with the Office of the Governor-General and is for this paid for by the Governor-General. The constitution does not permit for the payment of two or more Governor-Generals, under whatever title he/she might be known. It also means that the Governor-General leaving the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Australia cannot draw any expenses associated with that travel because the deputy in the seat to conduct the affairs of the Governor-General would instead incur the expenses associated with official business. . HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HOLDER: To the State everything that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal power everything that is national and of inter-State importance. I pass from these two general principles to a discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the question of the appointment of the representative of the British Crown in the person of the Governor-General. I do not take it that the words of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the matter of whether or not we shall elect our own Governor-General, because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire, END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE . HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
10
15
20
25
30
QUOTE Mr. HOLDER: Yes, of course; the Commission from Her Majesty lies dormant until it is actually called into existence by the absence of the Governor; but we can at this moment, if the necessity arises, appoint a new occupant to the Supreme Court Bench, and that would qualify him to fill the office of Acting-Governor if need required it. Therefore I think it is clear that to that extent it lessens the argument that the main link that binds us to the mother-country is the appointment of the Governor, and shows that it is an argument which has not half so much weight as some of the speakers would have us believe. But I take a very strong position against the election of the Governor-General by the Federation, not because I believe it would mean losing a link which binds us to England, but that we should have a man of such power and authority, derived directly from the people, that he would certainly clash with the other powers and authorities we propose to set up under this Constitution. END QUOTE . HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. LYNE: First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the Federal Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of this community to take what I may term the first step towards a severance from the mother-country, but the first step would be in the election of the Governor-General instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government. It is but a small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home Government; and I should like to know what power that Government would have over any Governor-General elected in the manner desired. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS .-I am not prepared to answer that question, but when we look at clause 52 we find these governing words on the very forefront of that clauseThat Parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, have full power and authority to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth. We see there that the Commonwealth is named as distinguished from the states . END QUOTE . HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. QUOTE . Because The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is the platform upon which the Commonwealth of Australia was build there is no power to change this, being it by smart talking lawyers and/or politicians because they like to use a purported backdoor way to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into some REPUBLIC. . It should be understood that neither can the Commonwealth of Australia apply a de facto constitution purporting to be identical to The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) because the moment one accept that the Federal parliament can create an alternative constitution (identical or not) then it means the Federal parliament likewise can remove s.128 referendum powers and amend this purported constitution as it desires. It would then turn the democratic Commonwealth of Australia, a POLITICAL UNION (see below) into a dictatorship. . It should be understood that for politicians there is much to gain to try to turn the Commonwealth of Australia from a POLITICAL UNION into a republic, even if it is deceptively claimed to be under the Queen of Australia. After all if the Federal parliament can turn the POLITICAL UNION into some purported monarchy then why not then the next step a REPUBLIC? After all, those who accept a purported monarchy cannot then complain if it is instead turned into a REPUBLIC. As they say what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Whereas Ministers in the British government have unlimited powers within their portfolio a Minister in the Commonwealth of Australia can exercise only powers peace, order and good government and not beyond. It is therefore abundantly clear in that regard also that politicians want to do whatever to broaden their powers and in whatever unconstitutional manner. On 19 July 2006, after a 5-year epic legal battle I defeated the Commonwealth of Australia comprehensively on all submissions based on constitutional matters, including those stated in the 2 December 2002 filed NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and did so comprehensively without challenge and in fact the Commonwealth of Australia consented for the Court to unconditionally uphold both of my cases. As such, I have the courts adjudication against the Commonwealth of Australia to support my views. . The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) QUOTE 3 Salary of Governor-General
There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.
40
45
END QUOTE . QUOTE 48 Allowance to members

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.
50
END QUOTE .
QUOTE 66 Salaries of Ministers 5

There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.
10
15
20
25
30
END QUOTE . The difference being that the Governor-General and the Ministers are employed by the Crown whereas Members of both houses of Parliament are not, their ALLOWANCES (Not salaries, as they are not employed) as such is directly payable from Consolidated Revenue Funds where as Ministers and the Governor-General are in employ of the British Crown and Her majesty may very well re-deploy a Governor-General to another colony/federation, etc. As Sir Grey made known he had been after having been governor-General of South Africa. After all, one would not want a Governor-General retiring with a life pension from the Commonwealth of Australia and then being appointed as governor-General to Canada and claim another life pension and then as retired governor-General of new Zealand collect yet another pension and on and on. Clearly, the term of payments for a Governor-General rest with the period in office and even during absenteeism then as set out below also the governor-General had to pay for his Deputy taking care of his duties and functions and not that the taxpayers are paying for two or more governorGenerals. . Indeed, the whole set up with the Senate was extensively debated that Senator-elect could not draw an ALLOWANCE until the day he actually took up the seat for which he was elected as otherwise there would be more senators in position of one seat then permitted. Hence, a Senator can only draw an ALLOWANCE for the time actually holding the seat and no longer. Upon retirement it is the end of payments. The same with Members of the House of Representatives. . QUOTE Governor-General Act 1974 3 Salary of Governor-General
The annual sum payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salary of the Governor-General shall be $394,000.
35
40
END QUOTE . It must be clear that this section is ULTRA VIRES , because by this the Federal Parliament has interfered with the provisions of section 3. . QUOTE 3 Salary of Governor-General
There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.
45
50
END QUOTE . If the Governor-General draws directly from the Consolidated Revenue Funds any salary then the Governor-General is not representing the Crown and as such cannot be deemed to exercise any prerogative powers, which is needed to maintain the link with the Crown for providing validly royal assent to Bills for them to become legislative provisions. .
10
15
Her Majesty may very well decide that the functions and duties the Governor-General exercises in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia may suit better to combine with the duties and obligations as Governor-General for New Zealand and so provide a certain salary that is well and above that of what is paid to her majesty from the Consolidated Revenue Funds of the Commonwealth of Australia. If this were to be so then Her majesty as the principle employer has every right to determine the level of total salary payable irrespective of what the Commonwealth of Australia may deem relevant to the functions and duties relating to the commonwealth of Australia only. . Below another abnormality where somehow the Commonwealth of Australia seeks to intrude upon the prerogative powers of the Queen in a remarkable idiotic manner. Somehow the Commonwealth provided that from Consolidated Revenue Funds (upon the death of the Governor-General )as the deceased persons husband or wife or partner on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis leaving more than one spouse to a spouse of the deceased person under this Act among the spouses . FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 QUOTE 43 Principles to be applied by courts The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to: (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; (b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children; END QUOTE . Whereas in British legislation a newer act automatically overrides all previous conflicting legislative provisions, other then any constitutional act, and likewise so any European Union legislation automatically overrides any British legislation other then constitutional acts . The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British Constitution Act and as such considering the decision of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd., R (on the application of) v English Nature and & Anor [2002] EWHC 908 (Admin) (24th April, 2002) and Judgments Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant), OPINIONS, OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL for judgment IN THE CAUSE, SESSION 2005-06 [2005] UKHL 42 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 168 It appears that the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) albeit not overriding constitutional law, is complimentary to British (constitution) law, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is. Legislation therefore includes all laws inhered from the United Kingdom, including the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and other legislation. More over, it includes also that the legal provision that the British Parliament can always amend its own laws remains applicable. Therefore the United Kingdom by signing the European Union treaty and so its acceptance of its Constitution, in effect has ensured that the right of the British Parliament to compliment The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was never extinguished.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
The right of any Parliament to amend its own legislation, including seeking/proposing an amendment of a constitution subject to s.128 referendum, provisions can only be limited by the provisions of the constitution, but the right to provide complimentary legislation, such as the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) is clearly not avoided, as any legislation applicable to British law automatically applies to all British law, with the exception that constitutional law cannot be interfered with by implied amendments. The purpose of the The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR) is not to undermine the The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) but rather is complimentary to the provisions of the Constitution. . Therefore, in regard of the Commonwealth of Australia the provisions of the amended Governor-General Act 1974 there is no such kind of automatically amendment to the Family Law Act 1975. Therefore for the Commonwealth proviing that from Consolidated Revenue Funds (upon the death of the Governor-General )as the deceased persons husband or wife or partner on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis leaving more than one spouse to a spouse of the deceased person under this Act among the spouses is a non legal enforceable provisions as it is ULTRA VIRES. . Without seeking to select any particular religion, consider that some person married to five or more wives was to be appointed governor-General and then claim for his entire harem of wives and the dozens of children payments! It is a total absurdity and not at all what the Framers of the Constitution contemplated. . It must be clear the Governor-General is to be employed by the British Crown and the constitution provides for salaries payable to the Queen and no others. If Her Majesty then were to appoint a person who has a harem and countless children then her majesty can feed the bill but the Commonwealth of Australia would only be obligated to pay for the Governor-General a salary and no more. . Another issue is that if I employ a contractor then it doesnt matter how many subcontractors that contractor engages in performing the job as ultimately I only pay the contractor regardless if he pays his subcontractors or not. The contract is with the Contractor. Any subcontractor would have no claim against me but against the contractor. Likewise so the Governor-General, he/she must obtain any payments for m the Queen and cannot so to say put his/her fingers in the till to steal monies from it as payment. A Cashier cannot put her fingers in the till as to obtain wages but must await the employer to pay her wages. Therefore, the Governor-General can only obtain payments through Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the British Crown (as set out further below) and if the Governor-General purports to serve a Queen of Australia then there is no constitutional provision for payments because the queen of Australia is a fictitious name of a non existing monarchy. . As quotations below clearly refers to British crown British Empire and not Australian crown or Australian empire it must therefore be obvious that a Governor-General can only legitimately represent the Queen and draw salary from the Queen provided she is appointed upon recommendation of the Home Office (not the Commonwealth of Australia) by the British Crown. . EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT! . QUOTE
Governor-General Act 1974

Act No. 16 of 1974 as amended This compilation was prepared on 1 January 2009 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 134 of 2008 END QUOTE And QUOTE
10
An Act to make provision in relation to the Salary of the Governor-General, and the Payment of Allowances to persons, and to the spouses of persons, who have held the office of Governor-General, to establish the office of Official Secretary to the Governor-General, to provide for the employment of staff of the Governor-General, and for related purposes
END QUOTE And QUOTE
(3)For the purpose of subsection (2), a person is to be regarded as ordinarily living with a deceased person as the deceased persons husband or wife or partner on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at a particular time only if:
15
20
END QUOTE And QUOTE 3 Salary of Governor-General
25
The annual sum payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salary of the Governor-General shall be $394,000.
END QUOTE And QUOTE 30 4 Allowances

(1) Subject to subsection (4), where, after the commencement of this Act, a person ceases to hold office as Governor-General, an allowance is payable under this section to him or her during his or her life-time at such rate as is from time to time payable under paragraph (3)(a).
35
END QUOTE And QUOTE 4A Allowance payable when there is more than one spouse
40
(1) If a person who held office or had held office as the Governor-General (deceased person) dies leaving more than one spouse, the Commissioner must allocate any allowance payable to a spouse of the deceased person under this Act among the spouses.
END QUOTE And QUOTE

5 Appropriation
An allowance under section 4 is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.
10
15
20
25
30
END QUOTE . As I indicated the Commonwealth of Australia cannot interfere with the prerogative powers of the Crown as exercisable by the Governor-General, however the Commonwealth of Australia can provide for the additional powers to proclaim other matters, such as to what date an Act may become applicable, provided it is on or past the date of it being Gazetted by the GovernorGeneral. . QUOTE FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 SECT 40 40 Jurisdiction of Family Court (1) The jurisdiction of the Family Court under this Act shall not be exercised except in accordance with Proclamations under this section. (2) The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, fix a date as the date on and after which the jurisdiction of the Family Court under this Act may be exercised in respect of all proceedings, or a class of proceedings, in such States and Territories as are specified in the Proclamation. END QUOTE . Likewise the Federal Parliament can provide other non-prerogative powers to the GovernorGeneral. It should however be understood that the Commonwealth of Australia and so the federal parliament cannot interfere with the British Crown and how this applies to the constitution and the High Court of Australia has judicial powers to adjudicate but cannot either interfere or otherwise wise the true meaning and application of the constitution which as the Framers of the Constitution made clear was -"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. . Below I have extensively canvassed therefore also this issue. . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; Mr. SYMON (South Australia).I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. .
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
Safe to state that the Commonwealth of Australia is a POLITICAL UNION existing by the legal provisions and referendums of the (then) colonies! Further, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there are no constitutional powers to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into a Republic! As like the EUROPEAN UNION there is no monarchy, republic, empire, etc, just a POLITICAL UNION Those Frenchmen, Dutch, Germans, British, etc, are not now claiming their nationality is EUROPEAN UNION as each retained their own nationality. Likewise Australians natural born or naturalized, as set out below, also retained their British nationality albeit commonly referred to as Australians. . Australian Citizenship is not and neither can be constitutionally a nationality as it is a political status obtained AUTOMATICALLY when a person obtains State citizenship, this too has been set out below to some extend. . HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. I desire to hold those links sacred, and if possible to strengthen them, and I am satisfied that in making his proposal the hon. member is not consulting the feelings of the people of Australia. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment will not be accepted. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).The only difference between the position before the institution of the Commonwealth and afterwards is that, so far as there are additional political powers given to any subject or citizen, be has the right to exercise these, and the method of exercising them is defined. So far the right of citizenship, if there is a right of citizenship under the empire, is defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a state is, without definition, a citizen of the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be applied to a subject of the empire.
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
END QUOTE . While the High Court of Australia in its 1996 Sue v Hill decision declared that somehow Heather Hill was excluded from being a Member of Parliament (Senate) the truth is that it was a fabrication of a non-existing Queen of Australia. When I naturalised in 1994 I understood to be under the British Crown, and somehow in 1996 it is being claimed that retrospectively it is not the British Crown at all but a nonexisting Australian crown? . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS .-It compels everybody who has obeyed the decision of the higher courts to act, or refrain from acting. That is a position which none of us would willingly get into, and the retrospective action is wrong. END QUOTE And QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.Unless the honorable member is willing to amend his clause in that respect, we should only complicate matters, and if retrospective operation were given to it we should be lending ourselves to what would be, quite unintentionally on the part of the honorable member, a gross injustice. END QUOTE . Hansard 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates 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 . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON: There can be nothing unsavoury in a title which means, according to the best authority, "the nation, state, realm, the commonwealth"-the word being interposed between "realm" and "republic," showing that it is used to signify the common good and that it has that signification whether under a queen or a republic. "Nation, state, realm, commonwealth, republic, commonweal, nationality." The words used by Roget as synonymous are among others "national" and "public." If these are the expressions associated by the highest authorities with the word commonwealth, why seek better? Shall we take confederation or federation? I will not give all the words which are stated as synonymous, because some of them express almost too much; but we find these, "league, alliance, coalition, confederacy, confederation." These are not altogether what we wish to express, because we know that although we have, embodied the operation of federal action in this commonwealth, still we seek to constitute a national government for national purposes. Our purposes of government may be national while we preserve the utmost
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
loyalty to the monarch whom the constitution sets over us. As the hon. member, Sir George Grey, has expressed it, we have constituted the Queen a member, and the highest member, of our parliament. The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is firmly embedded in the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill. END QUOTE . Again; QUOTE If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill. END QUOTE . And again; QUOTE If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill. END QUOTE . Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates; QUOTE Mr. DIBBS: So long as we remain in our present position as individual colonies, we are imperially federated, and we can be imperially federated in no stronger manner than in connection with our relation to the mother country. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE . Safe to state that the Commonwealth of Australia is a POLITICAL UNION existing by the legal provisions and referendums of the (then) colonies! Further, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that there are no constitutional powers to turn the Commonwealth of Australia into a Republic! Hansard 16-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID: That is the point. Under this constitution, with the leading principle in it that it is not to go beyond what is in it, no principle or subject which is not expressed within its pages can be dealt with by the federal parliament.
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
Looking that in the face, I say it is possible to distinguish between the questions in which the voice of the nation must be supreme, and questions in which the voice of the states must be represented. END QUOTE . What we have therefore is that the Governor-General can only be validly appointed upon recommendation of the Home Office (10 Downing Street) any the Queen and any salary is payable to the queen and the Governor-General simply has to sort out with the queen what salary he/she is receiving from the Queen. Fancy the Queen to appoint Prince Charles and then he is Governor-General and retires with a lifetime pension only then to become King! Likewise so with Prince William! The following quotations show that the Framers of the Constitution extensively debated the appointment of a Governor-General and held that if a Governor-General was not appointed upon the recommendation of the Home office by Her majesty then there was no legal link with the Crown. What this means that effectively all and any purported royal assent given never was valid as constitutionally the British crown only can give royal assent and not the queen of The Netherlands, the Queen of Denmark, the Queen of any other nation but only the British Crown. The delegates clearly opposed any appointment through the Commonwealth of Australia government as it also feared that the Governor-General might then become a political instrument for the government. Also it opposed an elected Governor-General as to avoid a power struggle. . It should be understood that the governor-General apart of ceremonial duties has in fact a very important role to play. If there is a double dissolution and a battle for power then the GovernorGeneral, as at the time of federation, may very well as the CEO have to deal with matters, including the payment of monies from Consolidated Revenue Funds to ensure that the entire administration is not grinding to a halt. And there are numerous other roles to play but I do not intend to refer to them in this document. . It also should be understood that constitutionally the Governor-General is the representatives of the Queen in Her Majestys absenteeism and hence there is no such thing as some member of the royal family coming to the Commonwealth of Australia to act on behalf of the Queen because not only would this be an insult to the governor-General but also would be in conflict with the constitution! . Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Application of provisions relating to Governor-General. 4. The provision of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being or other the Chief Executive
40
Officer or Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth, by whatever title he is designated. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HACKETT: I observe that the last line and a half is a virtual adoption of part of a clause in the American Constitution; but the President there is practically never absent from the seat of government. This clause, however, would allow the governor-general to draw
45
10
his full salary during a year's leave of absence; and I would point out that that leave of absence rests with the authorities in Downing-street. The clause, therefore, would allow the Colonial Office to arrange that the governor-general should draw his full salary during a year's absence, when an administrator would have to be appointed in his place, who would have to be paid a large salary for doing the work. Who would pay him? An HON. MEMBER: The governor-general! Clause, as amended, agreed to. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. PLAYFORD: But the Queen has the power to refuse it! Dr. COCKBURN: If the governor-general by letters patent is instructed to exercise that power, he will do so. Unless something is definitely stated on this point, I imagine the letters patent to the governor-general will be in this particular no different from the letters patent to ,the governors of the different colonies; and I wish to ask the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, whether it is his intention, in connection with the commonwealth, with all the presume which it will have, that an important matter such as the dissolution of parliament, which is purely a local matter, should not be vested in those ministers who are directly responsible on the spot to the people of the colonies? Sir GEORGE GREY: I am afraid I shall lose my chance of moving an amendment to this clause if I do not do it at this stage. I move: That the words "The Queen may, from time to time, appoint," lines 1 and 2, be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "There shall be."
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
The intention is that the governor may be elected. I feel that in bringing this subject under the notice of the Convention I am entering upon very delicate and very debatable grounds But I feel that, in point of fact, the future of vast multitudes of persons will depend upon the manner in which this question is dealt with. This is a question of the interests of nearly 4,000,000 persons at the present moment who look to us; and it appears to me extremely inexpedient that the power of appointing the governor-general to rule so vast a confederacy should be left in the hands of any minister of the day in Great Britain. The terms used are "the Queen shall appoint"; but we all know perfectly well that that means that the minister for the time-being shall appoint such person as he pleases, whilst such appointment might be absolutely obnoxious to her Majesty herself. The meaning of the thing is that a friend or any other person chosen by the minister may be appointed without the people of this great confederacy being in any way consulted. I understand that the reason usually alleged for that by persons who support the appointment being made by the Queen is that a social appointment is to be made. That is the term usually applied-it is a social question, and not a political question. I contend that the question is twofold, and those two things cannot be separated. The governor has political functions to exercise and he has social functions to exercise, and in either case I hold that a person so appointed is much less fitted to exercise those functions than a governorgeneral chosen by the people of the country would be. I do not understand how it can be said that any social ends whatever, or, at all events, of [start page 562] any magnitude, are attained by the appointment of the governor-general by the Crown; but I do hold that social ties and social questions of the strongest possible kind require that the governor-general should be elected by the people of the confederacy. Take the case of a widowed mother, herself well educated, perhaps brought up as a teacher in one of your public schools, and possessing great ability; imagine her with her
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
orphaned children, deprived of a father, night after night teaching those children, with a hope that the highest offices of the state of every kind may be open to them all. Is not that a social question-a social gathering of the highest and noblest kind? And hundreds, I may say thousands, of such social gatherings would be witnessed every night in this great commonwealth, if all the highest offices of state were filled by election by the people. If you follow it out, you will find that in all social relations of the family-fathers, mothers, children, brothers, sisters-this question is intimately concerned as being something which binds the whole family together for common objects, and opens paths of distinction to every one of them, if they prove themselves great and deserving men. Why should you say to all these 4,000,000 of people, "No one of you, nor any one of the other millions who are to occupy this country, shall have the slightest chance of ever attaining to an honor of that kind"-that it shall always be open, as it certainly, or almost certainly would be, to distant persons with no claim whatever upon the inhabitants of this country, all of whom would be shut out from so great an opening as that of which I speak? It is more materially necessary that we should consider this point now, and that we should come to a just decision upon it, because I will show hereafter, as the discussion on the bill proceeds, that in every instance all hope is shut out from the great masses of the colony to succeed to any one of the important posts which under this bill will be open to the people of Australia. I say that, looking to our duty to our Sovereign, we owe it to her to select the worthiest man we know to represent her here-to be certain that the man so chosen is worthy to represent her; and in no other way than by his being chosen by ourselves from people whom we know can we be certain that the worthiest man will be chosen to represent the Queen within the limits of the great confederacy which we are about to constitute. Considering the openings that would be given to every inhabitant of Australasia under such a system as I propose, with so many families, as will necessarily do it, directing their every exertion and effort to raise up children worthy of the great opportunities laid open to them, I ask whether this is not to us a greater social question than a few balls and dinners given at Government House, at which none but those in the immediate vicinity can be present? I ask what comparison is there between these two things-one great and far-reaching, extending to millions, the other a mere sham, as it were, representing what passes in another place, as if one were looking through the wrong end of a telescope at some procession that was going on? All matters connected with Government House are diminished here as compared with Great Britain and the influence exercised there. There it is the influence of an hereditary monarch descended from a long line of ancestors. There it is the influence belonging to certain professions-the army and navy-who look to receiving honor from the hands of such a sovereign. Here there are no ties whatever of that kind; and yet for a mere imaginary show, or what is called the performance of social dutiesentertaining strangers and also citizens immediately surrounding the vice-regal court, which are the only benefits that are abso- [start page 563] lutely gained-all those benefits that I speak of are lost. Let us look at it in another way, which is also worthy of our consideration. What is the necessary consequence of having a governor-general of this kind, with an enormous salary, and vast expenditure upon various subjects-a salary more than adequate to the duties to be performed? You will find set down in this bill a salary of 10,000 a year. The VICE CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. member not to discuss that matter, as the question of salary is dealt with in the next clause.
50
Sir GEORGE GREY: I find a difficulty in separating the two questions. They may be separated in clauses; but the one argument will hardly carry the full meaning of what it is necessary for me to say so that the matter maybe understood. I hardly see how it is possible
for me to divide the subject, because if I admit that the governor-general should be appointed by the Crown, what is the use of my afterwards arguing about the salary? If, whilst I am arguing upon what must follow upon the appointment of governor-general, I cannot refer to the salary, how can I make the matter thoroughly understood? I would submit, sir, that this is a case in which clearly it is impossible to separate the two. Mr. FYSH: Go on! Sir GEORGE GREY: Well, I can allude generally to the subject of powers and functions. Limiting myself, then, to the use of the term large, salary, may I say, without naming the exact amount, that the President of the United States, until but lately, received 6,000 a year for his salary for ruling 40,000,000 people, and at the present time I believe his salary is 10,000 a year for ruling 60,000,000 people, and daily augmenting in number. Here we are expected to pay at least as large a salary as is paid to the President of the United States for ruling 60,000,000 people, and to pay a governor-general nominated by the Crown. I ask is it just whilst so many poor people have to be taxed to pay their share of that salary, to deprive them of the honor, and, I may say of the just pride, of themselves electing some worthy man, known throughout so great an extent of country as Australia, to occupy that honorable post, with the certainty that such an example will operate upon every individual of the community, stirring noble faculties in many men, giving hope, perhaps, to some thousand or more of the people that they may possibly attain to such an honor? Is it right to make the people pay such sums of money, and to deprive them of honors to which they ought justly and rightly to look? And when, as I shall prove by-and-by, as we go on with the bill, each office is closed by some restriction or other to all chance of fair competition in the country, let us, at the very first, indicate in this clause that this great office shall be open at all times to that man in Australia who is deemed the greatest, and worthiest, and fittest to hold so noble a post, and to satisfy his fellow-citizens that they have wisely chosen one who will be an honor to the whole community. Can any of us believe that if at the time of the disturbances in the United States in regard to slavery a man had to be chosen by the British ministry of the day in London, there was the slightest hope that such a man as Lincoln would have come to the front to achieve the great and noble objects which he accomplished? I am sure the universal admission must be that there would have been no hope of such a thing. Yet from the forests of the United States there came one who had been a mere splitter of timber, worthy justly and rightly to exercise the highest power for a time in the United States and to accomplish the great ends at which he aimed. Are we in Australia to be told that also can find no man worthy to succeed to a post of that kind? Are we to be told that we must [start page 564] forego the chance of selecting a man of that sort, and that some thousands a year must be expended unnecessarily, when the money might be applied to great and good objects? And if it should be so expended will it be for the benefit of the people? No. I say it will be to their detriment, by depriving them of such just objects of ambition-objects just in themselves, find which would soon be dear to the hearts of all. To my mind, to subject the people of this new federation to a rule of this kind is to degrade, and not to ennoble; is to lower them in their own estimation, instead of raising them in their own estimation; is to say that they are not worthy to compete with their fellow-men in other parts of the world. As far as it rests with myself, I know that I am venturing upon dangerous ground. I know that I must raise enmity in many minds by what I am doing. Hon. MEMBERS: No! Sir GEORGE GREY: But I feel it my duty to run this risk in order to tell what I believe to be impregnable truths, and to try to lead this Convention to do that which I am confident will stamp greatness upon every man who assists in obtaining that
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
benefit for his country. I believe that those who force this clause into this bill, instead of not having done good to Australia, will virtually have conferred a great benefit upon the country by creating a necessity for a discussion of this question. If, now that the question has been raised, it is decided in favour of the people of Australasia-if they are told that this great boon is open to them; if this night we send a thrill from one part of the country to the other with the news that this great object has been attained, I say it will have been for all those who have aided in it one of the happiest days in their lives, and that they will be benefactors to countless generations yet to come in having obtained so great and good an object for them. And further than that, I say that to attain this object, to gain this principle will be to ensure for a long period of time the love of Australasia for England; to remove to a greater distance all chances of separation between the two countries, and to lead me, and I believe many others, to rest assured that a step of the strongest kind has been taken to strengthen the great union of Australasia for yet centuries to come, instead of endangering it, as I am certain will be the case, by blocking that union with the disastrous admission that we must take from Great Britain such governor-generals as she may please to send out, and that none of the citizens of this country may hope to obtain that great and, shall I call it, magnificent office. Actuated by these sentiments, I have felt it my duty to raise this question, and I trust that I shall have some support, if not a majority of the Convention, ill favour of that which I ask for. Amendment proposed. Mr. MUNRO: I am rather surprised at the hon. member, Sir George Grey, bringing this question forward at the present time. Dr. COCKBURN: He mentioned it in the former debate!
25
Mr. MUNRO: The hon. gentleman was a member of the committee which drafted the bill. Was not the matter thrashed out by the committee? Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: We are not bound by the report! Mr. MUNRO: I do not say we are; but the hon. gentleman told us that the arguments made use of in the committee were sufficient to convince him that he was wrong, and I thought the same course might have been followed on the present occasion, because if he was wrong in his views then most assuredly he is wrong now. The hon. member tells us that one of the great effects of electing our own governor-general would be to put him in the position of Abraham Lincoln-to give him similar [start page 565] powers and a similar position. Under our form of government that position is occupied by the Prime Minister, and no matter whether the governor-general were elected or not, he could not under constitutional government exercise the functions which Abraham Lincoln exercised. No governor-general could undertake that responsibility, whether appointed by the Crown or not. If the hon. member's argument were carried out to its legitimate issue the people of England ought to elect their sovereign. That is really what it means. The governor-general is to appear here as the representative of the Queen. Under our constitution the Queen is to be in some sense present among us. The only way in which we can have her present is through her representative, and if her representative is to be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her representative, but ours. To carry the hon. member's argument to its legitimate issue, therefore, he ought to say that the people of the empire should elect their own monarch. That is what it means. If the hon. member is not prepared to say that, he ought not to go to the extent to which he wishes to go. I do not think, however, that this is a matter to which we ought to devote much time at this stage; because, since we
30
35
40
45
10
15
have already agreed-and we have done so that we are to have a form of constitutional government under the Crown, we must allow the Crown the power of being represented in the union. If we carry out the proposal of the hon. member, the result would be that we must abandon the proposed union, and have a union in a different direction, certainly not under the Crown. The hon. member said the result of his proposal would be to strengthen the union with England; but I think few persons will agree with him in that respect. I think the people of Australia will agree with me that the result of his proposal would be to weaken the union. We should, in fact, begin to ask why we were connected with England at all. If we could appoint our own governor-general, if we could carry, on all our legislation, and do the whole of our business, the question would soon be asked what we had to do with England, and then where would the connection be? I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else. I desire to hold those links sacred, and if possible to strengthen them, and I am satisfied that in making his proposal the hon. member is not consulting the feelings of the people of Australia. Sir GEORGE GREY: I wish to answer a few of the arguments raised by the hon. member. I understood him to say that Abraham Lincoln would not be wanted here. Mr. MUNRO: I did not say that. I said that our governor-general could not do what Abraham Lincoln did in America! Sir GEORGE GREY: And that in that way he would have been unnecessary. Mr. MUNRO: That be would be unable to do what Abraham Lincoln did!
20
25
END QUOTE . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER: Listening as I do, with the greatest pleasure to everything that falls from the hon. member, Sir George Grey, I should be anxious in every way to agree with him if I could by any means bring myself to concur in his views. If the hon. gentleman had commenced his argument by asking what was the necessity for a governor-general, or for a governor at all, he might have appealed to the sympathies of a good many of us, because, as Mr. Deakin said, the office both of governor-general and of the local governors must in the nature of things be so much of the character of ceremonials, and have so little substantial authority, [start page 572] that had the hon. gentleman suggested that we should dispense with these-as some persons might consider them-baubles, there might have been a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition. But when the hon. gentleman, who I think generally believes in the British Constitution, at the same time advocates with such earnestness, eloquence, and seriousness the appointment from amongst ourselves, and from our own population of the gentlemen occupying the position of governor-general, I would ask him in what position will the governorgeneral be when he is elected? If he is elected by the voice of the people, does the hon. gentleman assume that history will not repeat itself, and that the governor-general will not assume a position something like that of the President of the United States, so that the cry amongst political parties will be, "Who is for the president, and who is against him?" If what we want to do is to get rid of the authority of the Queen, and to make the real substantial authority of the realm the person in the position of governor-general, the way to do it is to appoint the governor-general in the way the
30
35
40
45
10
15
20
hon. gentleman suggests; but if we want to retain the authority in the people-apart from the question whether it is to be in the senate or in the house of representatives, or in both co-ordinately-subject to the authority of the Sovereign, it would be inviting at once an interference with that authority to put at the head of the government a person elected by the people, and who, from the very nature of his election, would speak with authority, and assume a dominion over the commonwealth, which we are certainly not prepared to concede. I think the hon. gentleman must not attribute to any one of us the slightest disrespect, or feel hurt because we do not arrive at the same conclusions as be has arrived at, because, although, as the hon. member, Mr. Deakin, said, as a general principle, we think that all authority should come from the people, and that all officers should be elected by the people, we are not prepared to interfere with the cardinal principle of our constitution, and that is, that the nominal head of the government should be only the nominal head of the executive, and not become a real, substantial, legislative force in the community. END QUOTE . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Clause 3. The annual salary of the governor-general shall be fixed by the Parliament from time to time, but shall not be less than ten thousand pounds, and the same shall be payable to the Queen out of the consolidated revenue fund of the commonwealth. The salary of a governor-general shall not be diminished during his continuance in office. Mr. BARTON: I propose to omit the words "the same" as being quite unnecessary. The alteration will, I think, improve the bill.
25
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should like to see all the words after "from time to time" omitted, for I do not see why we should fix the amount at 10,000. I therefore move: That the words "but shall not be less than ten thousand pounds" be omitted. Mr. GILLIES: I should like to know from the hon. member the object of omitting the words. Is it that there shall be no salary at all?
30
Sir HARRY ATKINSON: No; it is that the federal parliament shall be left perfectly free to deal with the question of salary itself. An HON. MEMBER: I suppose the hon. member would do the same with the ministers? Sir HARRY ATKINSON: I should do exactly the same with the ministers!
35
40
45
Mr. MUNRO: I feel that the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, cannot have considered what he proposes to do. The governor-general must be appointed before the parliament is called into existence, and does the hon. member think that any one will take the office without some assurance that he will get a salary of some sort? Surely the governor-general ought to know Something about the office be is to fill and the emolument attached to, the position! If the amendment be made the result will be that the appointment will be made without any assurance as to the emolument which the holder is to receive. The hon. member says he will make a similar proposal with regard to the ministers of the Crown. I venture to say that the two proposals are really unwise, and that we ought now to attach some decent salary to the office giving power to the parliament to vary it, but not to reduce it during the term of office of the gentleman appointed afterwards. My conviction is that a salary of 10,000 is altogether inadequate for the office. My feeling is that the gentleman to
10
be appointed ought [start page 579] to be equal to the gentleman appointed as governorgeneral of India. He ought to be a gentleman capable of being a cabinet minister in England, and for that purpose the salary ought to be very much larger than what is proposed. I do not think it is to the advantage of the colonies to hawk this position about in such a way that no man of good standing or position will take it. When the Constitution of Victoria was agreed to many years ago, I think the population of the colony was about only 250,000, and yet they fixed the governor's salary at 10,000, with an allowance of 5,000, making it 15,000 in all. Since then it has been reduced to 10,000 a year, but a house is provided furnished, so that practically the emolument comes to 15,000 a year now. Now, this Convention, representing the whole of Australia, is going to give the governor-general a salary equal to what is given to the Governor of Victoria at the present time. Mr. CLARK: You will reduce yours! Mr. MUNRO: No, we do not intend to reduce ours. We think the Governor of Victoria is entitled to the salary, and perhaps more, if we could afford it. At any rate, I think that instead of striking out these words, and making the amount indefinite-in fact, making no provision at all-the words ought to be struck out with the view of increasing the amount very considerably. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Another reason why the words should not be struck out is not only the importance of the first governor-general knowing how much be is to get-a very important consideration in choosing him-but that the federal parliament might simply by reducing the salary cut the connection with Great Britain altogether. Supposing that it were to reduce the salary to 100 or 1,000 a year! That is the reason why in all the constitution acts there has been the reservation of a fixed sum, which is made payable to her Majesty, so that she has always money to pay her governor-general, and therefore can always secure the appointment in the country of her representative with an adequate salary. I agree with the hon. member, Mr. Munro, that the salary is too small, having regard to the salary given to the Governor of Victoria. Sir JOHN BRAY: I think it is desirable to fix the salary of the first governor-general. The clause says that the salary shall not be less than 10,000. It is very possible, I think, that that expression may lead to very serious misunderstanding. It is an intimation to the governor-general that he shall get 10,000 a year, and probably a good deal more than that. He ought to know when appointed what his salary is to be, and I think, therefore, that the salary of the first governor-general should be fixed in the bill. The words "but shall not be less than" should therefore be omitted. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That would enable the federal parliament to reduce the salary to 1,000! Sir JOHN BRAY: No, because the clause provides that the salary shall not be diminished during the governor's continuance in office. But I am astonished to hear it suggested that the federal parliament would be so supremely ridiculous as to fix a nominal salary for a governor-general. It is to my mind utterly out of the question to imagine that such would be the case. If we leave the clause as it stands we say to the federal parliament, "We cannot trust you to fix the salary; we will fix it at not less than 10,000, whatever the circumstances of the federal government may be." Surely if we give the federal government the powers which it is proposed to give them we can trust them to see that proper provision is made for the salary of the governor-general. I think we should fix the salary, of the first [start page 580] governor-general at 10,000, leaving it to the federal government to fix the salary subsequently.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The hon. member, Sir John Bray, surely could not have heard my argument. Does he suggest that the framers of the constitutions of the various colonies did not understand their business? This reservation in regard to the salary of governors is made in the whole of the acts. 5 Sir JOHN BRAY: But there is power to alter the act! Mr. GILLIES: Only by a certain majority! Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The salary cannot be diminished unless by an amendment of the act, and that is the object of the reservation. The idea is to secure the means of providing a representative of the Queen in the colony with an adequate salary. I will put this illustration. If you give to the federal parliament absolute power to reduce the salary, some persons may be constantly endeavouring to earn a little cheap popularity by proposing reductions. You will have continual agitations for the reduction of the salary to 8,000, or 6,000 or less. It would, perhaps, be regarded as a very popular move on the part of some persons. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that not rather a serious reflection upon public opinion? Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I have heard of persons who, in order to gain a little cheap popularity have been capable of that sort of thing. I think the proposed amendment would be a great mistake. The salary of course could be altered as part of the constitution; but then it would be only by the deliberate action of a majority of both houses, and with the approval of the states. Sir JOHN BRAY: Why not leave the salary to the federal parliament? Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It might then be determined by an accidental majority perhaps at the end of the session. 25 I understood the hon. member to suggest that the salary should not be either increased or diminished during the governor's tenure of office, and to argue that if the words "but shall not be less than" were retained, the governor would perhaps expect more than 10,000. I hope, for the reasons I have given, that the Committee will not omit the words. Mr. DEAKIN: There is another contingency possible, if the hon. member, Sir John Bray, feels that there is force-and there is force-in the remarks of Sir Samuel Griffith as to the necessity for protecting the salary of the governor-general against hasty reduction, allowing it to be reduced only by the machinery provided for an amendment of the constitution. The hon. member can yet press-and very properly-an amendment omitting the words "not less than," because while this renders it impossible to diminish the salary without altering the constitution, it leaves it perfectly possible to increase it by means of an ordinary bill. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is as the clause stands now! Mr. DEAKIN: If it were desired to provide 12,000 or 15,000, the extra amount could be appropriated by an ordinary act of parliament, because it would not alter the constitution. I think, therefore, that the hon. member, Sir John Bray, is justified in pressing his amendment to the point of rendering it necessary to alter the constitution, if it be wished to raise or diminish the salary of the governor-general. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Why for the purpose of raising it? Sir GEORGE GREY: I entirely differ from the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, in thinking that the power of reduction would be exercised for the sake of popularity. It is to
10
15
20
30
35
40
suppose that a majority of the federal parliament would make an alteration from an unworthy motive. It might [start page 581] be thought that the salary was much too large, and that it was injurious to the interests of the colony to pay such a large salary. The salary of the governor-general should be reduced whenever Parliament so desires, and should be increased at any time parliament may see fit to increase it. I think parliament ought to have the fullest power in fixing the salary. Sir JOHN BRAY: I understand that if the amendment of the hon. member, Sir Harry Atkinson, is put, and it is determined that the words shall stand, the amendment I desire to move cannot be put.
10
The CHAIRMAN: That is the case. Sir HARRY ATKINSON: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Sir JOHN BRAY: I move:
15
That the words "but shall not be less than," line 3, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "and until so fixed shall be." Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: That is exactly the same amendment; it strikes out the minimum!
20
25
Sir JOHN BRAY: It is not the same. My proposal is that the salary of the governorgeneral shall be 10,000 until it is fixed by the federal parliament. Surely we ought to intrust the federal parliament with the power of making proper provision for the salary of the governor-general, and ought not to make it necessary to alter the constitution act in order to alter the salary paid to that official. If we have any faith whatever in the federal parliament, we ought not to hesitate to empower them to either reduce or increase the salary as may appear to them to be necessary. Mr. GILLIES: I should have been pleased if the hon. member, Sir John Bray, had replied to the statements made on the other side by the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, in reference to what has been the universal practice. The hon. member must surely know that the salaries of judges and other high officials are fixed by act so that they may be generally known: but this does not prevent parliament from altering them. If the proposed words are inserted the federal parliament may consider it its duty, as soon as it met, to consider the whole question of salary. If we are to have a suitable person to occupy the position of governor-general both he and we ought to know what salary he is to receive. Sir HARRY ATKINSON: It will be fixed permanently for his term of office!
30
35
40
45
Mr. GILLIES: I beg pardon; we have not yet gone far enough in the clause to decide that question. The proper thing for us to do is to adhere to the practice in all constitutional colonies by which the salary of the governor is fixed. It can be altered by parliament, as has been done in Victoria, in the proper way, provided by the constitution. As my hon. colleague, Mr. Munro, has said, it was fixed at 10,000 a year, and 5,000 a year for allowances. But the salary could not be altered except in the way provided by the constitution. That is the case not only with the salary of the governor, but with the salaries of other high officials, such as the judges. That is a rational proceeding. This course is not proposed because there is any fear or doubt as to the honor or uprightness of the federal parliament. It is only proposed because it is desirable in the public interest that every person who is called upon to occupy a very high position in the state should know what his
10
15
salary and emoluments are. If it is found desirable afterwards in the public interest to reduce or increase that salary it can be done by the legislature; but it must be done in the way provided by the constitution. If we pass the clause including the words which prevent the salary from being altered so long as the gentleman who first fills it occupies the position, but leaving it open to the parlia- [start page 582] ment to resolve that the salary shall be reduced immediately he ceases to hold that position, I venture to think that what the hon. member, Sir Samuel Griffith, has indicated might happen. There might be a gentleman extremely anxious to be popular, or who might honestly believe that the salary could be reduced without disadvantage, and he might take steps to reduce the salary forthwith. Why should we not leave this question to be dealt with by the federal parliament, but make it necessary to carry out the alteration in the same way as other important alterations in the constitution have to be made? Why should we leave it to a chance vote of the legislature to decide this question? I believe that it would be a mistake to do so-not because I have any fear of the federal parliament, but because I think we should adhere to the practice hitherto followed in constitutional colonies. If it is desired to alter this provision, let it be altered in the same way as other fundamental provisions of the constitution are altered. Mr. KINGSTON: I understand that the contention of the hon. member, Mr. Gillies, is this: that if in future there is a desire to alter the salary of the governor-general it should be passed in the mode prescribed in the last part of the bill that is, a convention should be called to consider the question, and there should be no power whatever to give effect to the desire of the federal parliament, unless by a reference to conventions of the various states its action was approved. I utterly fail to see the necessity for the course suggested. I am in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member, Sir John Bray, to give power to the federal parliament to deal with this matter as from time to time they may think fit. In the first instance, the amount has to be fixed some how or other, and I have no objection to the amount now proposed, and it is also rendered impossible to alter the salary which is payable to a governor-general during his tenure of office. Something has been said with regard to the practice that obtains in other colonies with reference to the alteration of salaries of this description. So far as Canada is concerned, it appears to me that section 105 of the British North America Act gives to the Canadian Parliament the power to do what is proposed by the hon. member, Sir John Bray. The provision is: Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of the Governor-General shall be 10,000 sterling.
20
25
30
35
Dr. COCKBURN: And they did alter it-they reduced it! Mr. KINGSTON: With regard to Canada, hon. members who have referred to the practice of other colonies will find from the passage I have quoted that they are not consistent in their contention. Similarly, with reference to our own little colony, no doubt we have a provision that certain clauses in our Constitution Act cannot be altered unless the bills for the alteration are assented to by specified majorities. So far as South Australia is concerned, this restriction of the powers of the legislature only applies to alterations in the constitution of the two houses, and we have the fullest power by any act of Parliamentsubject, of course, to the royal veto-to deal with this question of the salary payable to the governor in such manner as we think fit. It appears to me that the precedents referred to support the contention of the hon. member, Sir John Bray. Why, then, should we proceed to tie the hands of the federal parliament and prevent them from dealing with this question as they may think fit? I am not going to take exception to the amount of salary proposed. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments which have been advanced on the subject of the position of the governor-general, and a late division in this Committee [start page 583] proves that a very large majority of the Convention are impressed with the
40
45
50
10
idea so eloquently urged by various delegates, that the position of governor-general is utterly unfit for, and unworthy of acceptance by, every citizen of the Australian commonwealth. Under these circumstances, there is reasonable ground for doubting whether or not we are not erring on the side of excessive liberality in fixing the amount to be paid to the first occupant of the office at 10,000 per annum. There is no fair ground either in precedent, or point of principle, for insisting on the necessity of tying the hands of the federal parliament in fixing the salary to be paid to the governor-general. There are much more important questions with respect to which they have a free hand. It is inconsistent to give them the fullest power to deal with those important questions while we refuse to do so with regard to this question of the salary of the governor-general. Subject to the qualifications that the amount in the first instance shall be specified, and that it shall not be altered during the continuance in office of any governor-general, I shall do my utmost to give the fullest power to the federal parliament to deal from time to time with the salary. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH : I would call the attention of the hon. member, Mr. Kingston, to this consideration-does he or does he not intend to make the Queen a permanent part of this parliament? Does he intend that the commonwealth of Australia is to be presided over by the Queen? If he does, I ask, does he intend to provide that distinctly by the constitution, and does be wish it to be a real connection, or that it may, by a passing whim of the parliament, be made merely a nominal one? This guarantee of 10,000 a year is the only thing reserved to the Queen under this constitution. We say that the Queen is part of the-parliament, that she is the head of the commonwealth. We wish her to exercise this function in the commonwealth; but we leave it entirely to the parliament to say whether we shall give her any allowance for doing so. I maintain that that is wrong in principle. If the Queen is to be part of the parliament, and to exercise authority in the commonwealth, we must have a deputy, and we are bound to say that we intend to make provision for the payment of his salary. That must be part of the constitution, otherwise there need be no salary, and the governor-general may be a mere shadow. Mr. KINGSTON: I decline to recognise the connection between Australia and the mother country as resting on such a slender thread as the payment or non-payment of a sum of 10,000 as the salary of a governor-general; and I say, with all respect to the hon. and learned member, that it is unfair to put the position in a contrary light. The maintenance of the connection with the mother country was not in the slightest degree endangered by the provision which we find in the Constitution of Canada. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Yes! Mr. KINGSTON: I have quoted the clause. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I believe they tried to reduce the salary, and the act was disallowed!
15
20
25
30
35
40
Mr. KINGSTON: The connection was not in the slightest degree endangered by the insertion in the Canadian Constitution of the provision which we seek to have embodied in this bill. Sir John Bray's amendment seeks to give effect to the same principle, and the power reserved to her Majesty to assent or withhold her assent to Canadian acts, will apply equally to acts passed by the federal parliament of Australia. Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: Has the hon. member considered what a serious thing that isdisallowance? [start page 584]
45
10
Mr. KINGSTON: No doubt it is a serious thing, and it would be a serious thing if the federal parliament were likely to disregard the obligation to provide a suitable sum for the gentleman selected for the office of governor-general. But I say we have no right to consider it probable that they would disregard that obligation. We have had no experience which will warrant such a supposition. We have no experience to warrant the suggestion that they will lightly disregard the obligations imposed on them. We have had power in our colony to make any regulations on the subject which we might think fit, and I am sure that the discretion observed in that colony, as in other places where similar laws prevail, will be sufficient to rebut the suggestion that the power is likely to be abused by a legislature which should be trusted with it. Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put. The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; noes, 12; majority, 12. END QUOTE . It is EMBEDDED within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK); Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MOORE: I feel that this is a question pretty easy of solution. There is no doubt that the command of the federal forces should be vested in the governor-general of the federated dominion. The whole of the forces should, of course, be under the federal government END QUOTE And Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS: But here the words used are, "as shall be appointed." Appointed by whom? It can only be by the governor-general, because I suppose no one here entertains the idea that the governor-general should be the appointee of the people at large, or of the federal parliament or any portion of that parliament. The governor-general must be the representative of the Queen by direct appointment from her Majesty, and that being the case, the government will be carried on in federated Australia in the way usually adopted now in the different colonies. END QUOTE Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: The governor-general is to appear here as the representative of the Queen. Under our constitution the Queen is to be in some sense present among us. The only way in which we can have her present is through her representative, and if her representative is to be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her representative, but ours. END QUOTE . Again; Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. MUNRO: and if her representative is to be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her representative, but ours. END QUOTE .
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
The Queen herself could not even alter this, as it is EMBEDDED in the Constitution, and it would therefore require a REFERENDUM to approve the amendment of the Constitution to have a Governor-General appointed any other way. It would be absurd to hold that the Queen could somehow ignore constitutional provisions, enacted by the British Parliament, merely upon what the Australian Parliament may desire and so erode the very security EMBEDDED in the Constitution . Now, we do not want an elected Governor-General (or whatever other name of title he may us) to go in a political battle with an unelected Prime minister and then claim the moral high grounds, etc. Neither do we desire a unelected Governor-General who is appointed by an unelected Prime Minister, so that the electors themselves have absolutely no control over the two men who are wielding power. . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD: Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be favoured the appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia being a colonial appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of England-and I hope that it is a very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I maintain that the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia must be the appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is the apex of that structure, and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any other [start page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions. END QUOTE . See also Chapter 534 Kerr wrong when sacking Withlam . QUOTE The Queen is the umpire and can withdraw her commission of a Governor-General if she holds this required. The Governor-General can withdraw his commission to the Prime Minister if this is deemed required. John Kerr proved to do so but did it in an unconstitutional manner to appoint Malcolm Fraser and allow him to pass a bill through the Senate and then call an election. That was not the system embedded in the constitution. The system provides that the GovernorGeneral, when intervening he does so to call a double dissolution! . * Excuse me but what then if there is no money to pay for the ordinary cost of Government like salaries, paying pensions, pay for the hospitals, to fund an election, etc because the Supply Bills (Appropriation Bills) have not been passed? . **#** There is an embedded constitutional power that the Governor-General can draw from the Consolidated Revenue any funds required in case of such an emergency and the new parliament then later approves this. Actually, this was the very basis upon which the federation was formed, because there was no Parliament existing when the federation commenced as no elections were then held. It was the then Governor-General who authorized all expenditure in accordance as the Framers of the constitution already had contemplated he would. As such, John Kerr could at the time of the Withlam crisis have simply withdrawn his commission for Gough Withlam and any other Ministers and proclaimed for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION and have held elections while authorizing funds to be drawn in the mean time from the consolidated Revenue. It is a constitutional powers that exist and was used from the federation until the first parliament passed its Appropriation bills but was ignored by John Kerr and neither seem to have been raised by others as an existing power. . For example, after federation had commenced there was an executive but no Parliament. The Minister had to provide for a federal election and funds for this had to come from somewhere. As such the Governor-General provided the funds by his authority to draw against the Consolidated
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Revenue. Now you may ask where did this money come from. Well, for example Department transferred to the Commonwealth, which were listed in Section 69 of the Constitution, would be using moneys and as such incurring expenditure as well as receiving monies. As such, monies were being spend and raised even so no specific commonwealth legislation had been established since federation because the time to hold elections, and have the first sitting of Parliament means that for the time being the Commonwealth operated using state legislative provisions until it was able to have its own legislation in place. . As such, the Governor-General has the constitutional powers to draw monies from Consolidated Revenue provided that subsequently the monies are accounted for in appropriation bills by the subsequent parliament. Also, monies must be for annual expenditure of the Commonwealth and cannot be simply because a Governor-General fancy purchasing himself some elaborate and expensive retreat to reside in. . If the popular branch of the legislature is not satisfied with ministers, it expresses that in very clear and unmistakable language; and if that is not sufficient for ministers-if they want a little more-what the house does is to address the governor, and inform his Excellency that ministers do not possess the confidence of Parliament. . As such you cannot have a Minister who is part of the Senate as a Member of the Senate (Senator) is not accountable to the House of Representatives. It is sheer and utter nonsense that a Senator, representing State interest is placed in a conflict of interest to be a Minister of State for the Federal Government as a Federal Executive. The Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution that a Minister should be accountable to the House of Representatives and could be voted upon to be ousted as Minister, and this would not be applicable with a Minister being a Senator. The House of Representatives has no power to vote about a Senator and neither visa versa! Hence all Senators appointed by the Governor-General as Ministers are unconstitutionally appointed! The Federal Executive must be drawn from the federal elected representative of the House of Representatives and not from a narrowly elected State representative of the Senate! . In immediately starting the business of the commonwealth, it is provided that certain powers may be taken over at once by the executive government of the commonwealth, namely, as to customs, excise, posts and telegraphs, military and naval defence, ocean beacons and buoys and ocean lighthouses and lightships, and quarantine. Other matters are left to be dealt with by the federal legislature from time to time as they may think fit. . The meaning of this statement relates to Section 69 of the Constitution which placed these Department under control of the Federal executive without the need of legislation where as other provisions within Section 51 of the Constitution are legislative powers, not executive powers, and as such can only be accessed by the Federal Executive upon legislation providing this power. Indeed this was also the issue of Debate in 1898 when it was then pointed out by a Delegate that Section 51 provides for executive powers but not legislative powers. . It also means that the Federal Executive cannot unlimited exercise powers merely because a subject is within Section 51 of the constitution but can only exercise such powers as are permitted by legislation within that section and then the Minister can only be provided executive powers within limited legislation by the Parliament for the peace, order and good government and not beyond. . Hence, a Minister has no executive powers to just legislative powers for anything that is not for the peace, order, and good government. This as any legislation that purports to be beyond the
10
15
powers to legislate for the peace, order and good government is ULTRA VIRES, and as such cannot be relied upon by the Minister as giving him executive powers. This issue has also been canvassed in other previous mentioned Chapters. . Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Sir JOHN BRAY: I quite agree with Sir Samuel Griffith, that if we are not to overlook this question entirely it ought to be settled somewhere in this clause, and if the hon. gentleman sees no strong objection to such a course I shall move the insertion at the beginning of the second paragraph of the words "for the purposes of this section." It would be manifestly absurd in regard to the first election of senators to say that if a man is elected in September or October the term of his service shall begin from the preceding January, and that he shall be entitled to all the privileges of a senator from that date. It is quite possible that this may not be the best amendment that can ultimately be made, but it seems to me clear that the second paragraph was drawn with the idea, that it applied to this section only and not to other portions of the bill. I beg, therefore, to move as an amendment: . What is clear is , as was later adopted, that you cannot have a person benefiting from allowance or other parliamentarian benefits before having taken up a seat in the Parliament. Yet, we saw that since the 2007 federal elections elected persons but not having taken up their seat in parliament somehow then were provided with allowances the Constitution only permits for sitting members of Parliament! . Hansard 6-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates Clause 58. When the governor-general assents to a law in the Queen's name he shall by the first convenient opportunity send an authentic copy to the Queen, and if the Queen-inCouncil within two years after receipt thereof thinks fit to disallow the law, such disallowance being made known by the governor-general, by speech or message, to each of the houses of the parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the law from and after the day when the disallowance is so made known. Dr. COCKBURN: I think the period of disallowance is larger than is necessary. It was all very well many years ago, when the communication with England was long and tedious; but now we have such rapid means of communication that I think two years is too long. I think it might very well be reduced by one-half or one-fourth. Six months or a year would be quite sufficient. There is nothing more vexatious than uncertainty in these matters. I think we should also lay down upon what subjects the power of veto is to be exercised. We shall all agree that in questions of domestic legislationMr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!
20
25
30
35
40
Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will exist with the least strained relations with the mother country. Nothing gives rise to such vexation as a veto upon questions of domestic legislation. Take the case of Canada. Mr. MUNRO: Two years is the period fixed under their Constitution!
45
. QUOTE 14-5-2005 CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE The Bulletin C/o Gary Linnell, Editor.
14-5-2005
54 Park Street, Sydney 2000 Fax 02 9267 4359 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Gary, 5 I read both you Editor note and the article of Jennifer Burney, both lacking to even remotely produce a real picture of Hollingworth as Governor-General and the real reason Hollingworth may have resigned, but kept secret! Even if you ignore the entire sexual abuse issue scandal, Peter Hollingworth had to go, as I view he was but the most incompetent Governor-General! As author of various books under the INSPECTOR-RIKATI trademark, such as; INSPECTOR-RIKATI on CITIZENSHIP A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed. ISBN 0-9580569-6-X 15 This book in fact then set out the legal issues why Pauline Hanson was wrongly convicted, and 5 weeks later (November 2003) the Court of Appeal used those very grounds to overturn her convictions! And not to forget what I have set out in; 20 INSPECTOR-RIKATI and the BANANA REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA Dictatorship & deaths by stealth. Preliminary book on CD edition. ISBN 0-9580569-3-5 Published October 2002 And 25
INSPECTOR-RIKATI & There is no Government to go to war A book on CD About Legal Issues Confronting Australia
10
ISBN 0-9580569-5-1 Published March 2003 And due to publish; 30 INSPECTOR-RIKATI on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD ISBN 0-9580569-4-3 35 I noted the comment on page 22 of The bulletin 187 may 2005; No, I am not a politician. I didnt think the role [of governor-general] was going to be political, and I was nave. Few people would understand certain constitutional issues as extensive as I do, and I wish to make it very clear that the Framers of the Constitution (Constitution Convention Bill 1898) likely never would have proceeded with Federation had they been expecting the tyranny Hollingworth would allow. Firstly, Hollingworth himself accepted a POLITICAL appointment by John Howard, totally unconstitutional, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that a Governor-General was to be appointed by the Monarch upon recommendation of the Home Office at Downing Street! The debated and rejected for the Prime Minister of Australia to be involved in any appointment of a Governor-General as they feared, and rightly so, that it would be a political appointment.
40
45
10
15
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that if there was some jack-in-office, then a Governor-General was to be without political bias and act upon what was in the best interest of the general public, even if this was to reject the advise of his Minister. Therefore, when John Howard, through Robert Hill wanted a war against Iraq, Hollingworth seemingly refused to gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. Hence, there was no constitutional power for Robert Hill, as minister of Defence, to deploy any Australian troops in regard of a armed murderous invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq. Still, John Howard, without having any constitutional position to do so, declared to invade Iraq. Hollignworth there and then ought to have removed his commission for John Howard, Robert Hill and others to act as Federal Executives and replaced them, and indeed ought to have them charged for TREASON, this Hollingworth failed to do. Likewise, he failed to stop the unconstitutional federal election on 10 November 2001, when I complained about its validity. As Governor-General he was to first publish in the Gazette the Proclamation for the prorogue of the Parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives before any writs could be constitutionally issued. However, writs were issued on 8 October 2001, where as the Proclamation was not published until 9 October 2001 (Canberra) and as late as 22 October 2001 in Tasmania. Hollingworth was made aware of problems, but he decided to ignore those issues. I took the matter before the Courts, such as on 7 November 2001 but the case was railroaded by Marshall J of the Federal Court of Australia, and subsequently by the High Court of Australia on 3 October 2003, and also the High Court of Australia on 18 February 2003 and again on 18 march 2003 (a day before the invasion commenced) refused to hear my Section 75(v) of the Constitution applications. Mr Peter Hanks QC , for the Australian Electoral Commission, the Government (and later also for Peter Hollingworth- as Governor-General), made false and misleading statement to the Court as to pervert the course of justice. While I had my case outstanding against the then governor-General Peter Hollingworth before the High Court of Australia, I discovered that all judges had a visit to the residence of the Governor-General. Clearly highly inappropriate for judges to have some get together with one of the parties of a case before them. No wonder my case was railroaded subsequently! In my view, Peter Hollingworth made the Office of the Governor-General political by siding with John Howard with his unconstitutional conduct, rather then to fulfil his duties as a Governor-General. When Governor Green was appointed as acting Governor-General (Administrator) constitutionally it was for Peter Hollingworth to pay the salary of the acting Governor-General Green! Neither is it constitutionally permissible for a former Governor-General to take superannuation from the Consolidated Revenue in regard of his past position as Governor-General! While many people are wondering why Mark Latham, returning from holidays in 2004 suddenly announced to cut down superannuation for politicians, and John Howard soon afterwards followed suit without discussing this with the members of his party, the truth is that they sought to protect their own hide, because they knew from my December 2003 submission that it is unconstitutional for any Federal parliamentarian and so any Minister of the Crown also to have a superannuation scheme from Consolidated Revenue in relation to being in Parliament. For a Minister of the Crown, and for this a Governor-General, wants a superannuation then it is for the Monarch (the queen) to provide for this, nothing to do with the Commonwealth of Australia as they are not and were not in employ with the Commonwealth of Australia. Likewise,
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Members of parliament are not employed by the Commonwealth of Australia, and are only entitled to an allowance in relation to loss of income while engaged in parliamentarian duties. Perhaps, Jennifer Byrne and yourself ought to be less bleeding hearths , so to say, for Peter Hollingworth and do some real journalistic reporting that shows the reality of Peter Hollingworth. Because of deformation laws, I have to be very careful to not make deliberate allegations that may tarnish a person unduly, hence, I do my homework and then make the claims based upon evidence. Dont you think that Mr Peter Hanks QC by now would have sued my but off, so to say, if I was to make claims he made false and misleading statement to the Court if this was untrue? Unlike your organization having millions behind you to pay for any deformation claim, I do not have this, hence, need to make sure that whatever I claim is backed up as to avoid , so to say, having my shirt taken of my back. Yet, somehow The Bulletin seems to lack proper journalism as to show if the politicising of the Office of the Governor-General was because Peter Hollingworth himself may have been guilty of doing so! For the record, I never had any formal education in the English language and neither was it my native language and I did not attend to any journalistic education facility but I view that when it comes to providing an article you and Jennifer Byrne may still be able to learn a lot from me as to how get all relevant facts for a story as to avoid it being bias. When did The Bulletin ever address appropriately the constitutional validity of invading Iraq, such as I placed before the Courts? Sure, the Courts may have prevented matters to be heard upon their MERITS, but that did not and does not defeat my constitutional challenges against Hollingworth, Howard, Hill and others. Come to think of it, you may unlikely have Australian citizenship, albeit may be an Australian national, but that is another story. Citizenship is State legislative powers and naturalization is Commonwealth legislative powers. Natural born nationals do not fall under either State of commonwealth legislative powers, as they are inherently entitled to Australian nationality, such as children born to refugees. Then again, that was one of the constitutional issues I was challenging before the Courts, and clearly undesirable for the Court to rule upon. Hence my cases were railroaded for this also. Would it not be good if The Bulletin could produce some real journalistic reporting about those issues? It might even make my membership worthwhile! See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA END QUOTE 14-5-2005 CORRESPONDENCE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. DEAKIN .In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, As the Framers made clear, the Constitution had to be interpreted as to what was debated during the Constitution Convention Debates. When is a proclamation published? 50 Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON.If we make it read that it shall take place on the date of the proclamation by the GovernorGeneral 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.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Again; will take that action by publishing a proclamation It shows; Then it would follow the action of the Commonwealth! 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) 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. Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates The question has been asked whether the Parliament cannot make laws affecting the prerogative. The answer is-"Yes" and "No." The Parliament can make laws affecting the prerogative in respect of any matter in which it has express power of legislation or a power necessarily implied. It cannot make laws affecting the prerogative in matters with respect to which it has no power to make laws. Mr. FRASER.-Can it not get authority? Mr. BARTON.-Not unless it gets the power in this Act. By this, where the Federal parliament has legislative powers to provide for elections, then the manner in which a Proclamation is to be deemed to be published is within its legislative powers provided it does not interfere with the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution that a Proclamation only comes into effect when published in the Gazette. As such, the old version of the Act Interpretation Act 1901, as it was previously was constitutionally valid, and the new version is not where it purport that no publication in the Gazette is required. As such, Act Interpretation Act 1901, as it was,
17 Constitutional and official definitions [see Note 2]
10
15
20
25
30
In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears: (j) 35 Was in accordance with constitutional requirements. The new version is now; Acts Interpretation Act 1901 Act No. 2 of 1901 as amended This compilation was prepared on 28 February 2005 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 8 of 2005
(j) Proclamation shall mean Proclamation by the Governor-General that is published in the Gazette or entered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments established under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003;
Proclamation shall mean Proclamation by the Governor-General
published in the Gazette;
40
45
Now, this means if any Proclamation is not Gazetted then it is and remains unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES, because the Federal parliament posses no constitutional powers to override the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution (Delegates of the Constitution Convention) ! In
fact, the Framers made clear that not even action could be taken upon any Proclamation of the Queen until it was published! 5 WATSON v_ LEE (1979) 144 CLR 374; BARWICK C.J.
To bind the citizen by a law, the terms of which he has no means of knowing, would be a mark of tyranny.
10 How on earth would anyone know when a document is on a Federal Register, where today I was unable for about 2 hours (4.30 am till 7 am) to access it via the Internet. And, in any event Federal Register or not, it cannot overcome the constitutional requirement that it must be published in the Gazette before it has any legal force! Therefore the wording or entered is deceptive and misleading and may result that Proclamations are registered on the Federal Register of legislative Instruments and then are found to be ULTRA VIRES because of the failure to appropriately according to constitutional requirement to publish it in the Gazette and make it available over the counter when required. Did you ever look at what is shown on the Gazettes? Have you noticed that it states; Published by the Commonwealth of Australia ? Now, lets have a look at what the Act Interpretation Act 1901 states;
15
20
17A Paper or document purporting to be printed by Government Printer

For the purposes of an Act in which reference is made to a paper or document purporting to be printed by the Government Printer, the words Government Printer of the Commonwealth, Government Printer of the Commonwealth of Australia, Commonwealth Government Printer or Government Printer of Australia appearing on a paper or document shall be deemed to refer to the Government Printer.
25
30
35
40
45
As I am a registered Publisher, I know too well that Publishing and Printing are two different things. Anyone can be a Printer by just printing something out of a computer, to print a picture, etc. However, to be a Published means that for example in book publishing you required to act in a certain legal manner. For example obtain a ISBN number for whatever he publishes. Printers may print pictures with floral design or other items on them but simply then hand them over to the customer without being a Publisher. CanPrint, who is a Printer, therefore is not necessarily the publisher of certain material they print, if all they do is to print and forward it to others who then publish it. For example, the Printer sending it of in the past to InfoShop to publish Gazettes, (that was until that system was vandalised by the government) and as such InfoShop were the actual publishers, as they were the one selling the Gazettes. Therefore, constitutionally, it is not when the Printer prints Gazettes but when the Publisher actually makes the Gazette available for sale that it is deemed to be Published. If the Publisher, simply put the Gazettes in a cellar and withhold it from the general public then it cannot be deemed to have been Published. The Commonwealth of Australia, so its Parliament has no constitutional powers to undermine the intentions of the Framers, and they made it very clear;
it will only take place when the Governor-General will take that action by publishing a proclamation.
As such, any recording on some Federal register will not have any effect upon it being published.
As such, the term or entered is deceptive, false and misleading and ought to be amended to and may be entered which would mean that it is optional but not relevant to the exercise of the prerogative power. 5 I . Do swear that I will be faithful and bear true alliance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second, Her heirs and successors according to laws. SO HELP ME GOD. Therefore, the governor-General is bound by the oath of his office to fulfil duties within the boundaries of relevant legislative provisions. CLAYTON v. HEFFRON (1960) 105 CLR 214 The reasoning of Fullagar J in Clayton v. Heffron (supra) in relation to the provisions of s 5B of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) is material in this context: "A manner and form are prescribed by section 5B, and that manner and form must be observed if a valid law is to be produced. Any prescription of manner and form may be repealed or amended, but, while it stands, the process prescribed by it must be followed. That was decided Trethowan's case and I think that the whole of what is prescribed by section 5B relates to manner and form. It does not seem to me to be possible to say that some of the requirements of the section are matters of manner and form while others are not. The section describes one entire process - a series of steps, one following on another and only the completion of the entire process can produce a valid law." (Supra at 262) A Governor-General only can be but appointed by the Queen, as the intentions was of the Framers of the Constitution , and anything else will be unconstitutional. QUOTE . Yet again: Hansard 9-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Application of provisions relating to Governor-General. 4. The provision of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth, by whatever title he is designated. END QUOTE 35 . Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.We know that the Governor is the chief executive officer, END QUOTE 40 Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).21-1-2010 Page 34 PLEASE NOTE : Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website, contact details. schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com
10
15
20
25
30
Of course, if it is said that there are no persons in the community, and are not likely to be any, who are competent or suitable for this high office temporarily, it would be a very good argument, and one having force with me; but unless that is the case-and I do not think it will be the case and as we are not making this Constitution for to-day or to-morrow, but for all time, it will be much better to keep altogether separate the judicial and administrative parts of the Government. END QUOTE And Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).. It will therefore be altogether a wrong thing to put it in the power of the Government to appoint to any office in which be will be brought into contact with the Executive Government a high officer who may be called upon at any time to decide such questions. The difference between the two positions is so strong that it appears to me to be only necessary to point it out. I can see that there may be inconvenience in following this course, but it is much better that inconvenience should occur in the selection of persons to fill this appointment than that it should be within the power neither of a judicial officer or of the Executive Government at any time to put the Judiciary in a false position in regard to the Commonwealth. 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; and it would be impossible that a high judicial officer who had to decide these questions, which may at any time become political questions, should also be in the relation of having to be advised by the Executive Government-perhaps advised to grant a dissolution of both Houses of Parliament in regard to a dispute which may have arisen in relation to the validity of a statute; or be might have to decide a question arising as between state and Commonwealth. On these grounds, I hope that the essential difference between the Governor-General of this Commonwealth and the Governor of the states will be recognised, and will prevent the committee from altering the clause from its present form. END QUOTE And Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).We have no right, in this Constitution, to dictate to Her Majesty to who shall be her agent. Her Majesty has a right to pick such agent as she thinks fit in any part of the colony, and we have no right to say-"You shall not do so and so." END QUOTE And QUOTE Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).From that point of view, we appoint a protector of the Constitution; that is, the Supreme Court, which is to be in a calm ether of its own-removed from party strife and political passion. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I do not say that; but I have an impression that he would. The words are"No person holding any judicial office." 5 Mr. SYMON.-Any person in active service. Mr. BARTON.-Yes, as my friend says, any person in active service-any Judge who is not a retired Judge. 10 An HONORABLE MEMBER.-That would exclude a justice of the peace. Mr. BARTON.-No, I do not think it would. Primarily a justice of the peace was a ministerial officer who inquired into indictable offences, and committed or not, as there might be a prima facie case. But a justice of the peace has since been invested by statute with summary jurisdiction. I question whether that makes the office of justice of the peace a "judicial office." END QUOTE The following quotation makes also very clear that 10 Downing Street decides if a Governor-General is to stand aside, vacate his office, etc. It means that Governor-Generals not appointed by the Queen of the British Crown are and not upon recommendation of the Home Office at Downing Street are not duly and properly elected and therefore any Proclamation issued by them or any writs issued by them are NULL AND VOID (ultra vires). . Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HACKETT: I observe that the last line and a half is a virtual adoption of part of a clause in the American Constitution; but the President there is practically never absent from the seat of government. This clause, however, would allow the governor-general to draw his full salary during a year's leave of absence; and I would point out that that leave of absence rests with the authorities in Downing-street. The clause, therefore, would allow the Colonial Office to arrange that the governor-general should draw his full salary during a year's absence, when an administrator would have to be appointed in his place, who would have to be paid a large salary for doing the work. Who would pay him? An HON. MEMBER: The governor-general! Clause, as amended, agreed to. END QUOTE
.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
This apparently did not occur when Governor Green was acting Governor-General! . We also have to consider that if the High Court of Australia were to be followed (Sue v Hill) that anyone of the British Crown was ousted by s.44 of the constitution then we would have an acting Governor-General Like Governor-Green was at the time who was not under the so called Queen of Australia but under the British Crown as Governor and somehow at the same time as acting Governor-General deemed to serve the Queen of Australia. Surely no one in his/her right mind can accept this kind of reasoning to be correct. Yet as the can be demonstrated in the Crown v Josepha van Rooy case His Honour Wood J (see below quotation) made clearly a distinction between the Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia and that of the State of Victoria. The Queen of Australia (a political union) is not the same as the British Crown and the Queen of Australia couldnt be the Queen of the State of Victoria as this is the British Crown and so likewise for Tasmania where I understood Governor Green came from. . As a subject of the British Crown I do not accept that a judgment of the High Court of Australia can somehow alter my constitutional status and rob me of my British nationality and indeed the Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 also makes clear that this cannot be done towards any of my natural born children who were born within the commonwealth of Australia. And, again the
10
15
20
constitution Committee 1988 report indicated that it merely assumed legislative powers and as such obviously never bothered to check what the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution actually was and what legal principles there were embedded in the constitution! . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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 END QUOTE . (Note; Citizenship governs the political rights of a person and has constitutionally nothing to do with Australian nationality!) And Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.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. END QUOTE . Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. WISE (New South Wales).He lays down in express terms the principle which Judge Shipman used as the basis of his judgment in the case I cited yesterday from 22 Blatchford, 131, that is to say, if a state passes a law the effect of which is to injure the territory or property of persons outside the state-that may not be the intention, but if the direct effect is to inflict injury upon the territory or property of citizens in another state-then that law, although in so far as it only affects citizens within the state that passes it, it is intra vires of the Constitution, it becomes ultra vires in so far as it inflicts injury on the inhabitants of another state. That, I believe, was the intention, although I feel some diffidence in insisting upon it. This was the view which formed the basis of the judgment of Mr. Justice Shipman. END QUOTE Therefore legislative provisions are ULTRA VIRES for so far it trespasses upon the constitutional limitations of legislative powers. Also, while in the above it was referred to about the High Court of Australia declaring something to be ULTRA VIRES, and this was in the HCA 27 of 1999 Wakim case regarding the purported Cross Vesting Act , this was no more then but an official declaration but the parties were before the Courts already and if the Cross Vesting Act was to be deemed only INTRA VIRES from when the High Court of Australia made its declaration then it would have been to little avail for the party seeking this declaration. Clearly, it was ULTRA VIRES from onset. . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 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. END QUOTE . Quick & Garran's "Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" more accurately
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
and more meaningfully says that; QUOTE "A law in excess of the authority conferred by the Constitution is no law; it is wholly void and inoperative; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protection.". END QUOTE . Therefore, once a person makes a constitutional based objection then that is the end of it. More over, the Sue v Hill decision by the High Court of Australia is in total conflict with http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html Calvin's Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER at 396, QUOTE And the usual and right pleading of an alien born doth lively and truly describe and express what be 1s. And therein two things are to be observed. 1. That the most usual and best pleading in this case, is, both exclusive and inclusive, viz. extra ligeantiam domini Regis, &c. et infra ligeantiam alterius Regis, as it appeareth in (a) 9 Ed. 4. 7. b. Book of Entries, fol. 244, &c. which cannot possibly be pleaded in this case, for two causes. 1. For that one King is sovereign of both kingdoms. 2. One ligeance is due by both to one sovereign; and in case of an alien there must of necessity be several Kings and several ligeances. END QUOTE And QUOTE 7 Coke Report 18 b, 77 ER p399 subdito dato, of a donaison: for that is the right name, so called, because his legitimation is given unto him; for if you derive denizen from deins nee, one born within the obedience or ligeance of the King, then such a one should be all one with a naturalborn subject. And it appeareth before out of the laws of King W. 1. of what antiquity the making of denizens by the King of England hath been. 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. END QUOTE As the material of the UNREPRESENTED Defendant (Josepha van Rooy) did set out that Heather Hill was born within the real of the British Crown, and the Commonwealth of Australia is a POLITICAL UNION and never was a monarchy, dominion, republic, etc, then the title of Queen of Australia is a fictitious title and cannot have any legal application. END QUOTE . Again, my children natural born within the realm of the queen cannot be somehow transformed to a non-existing Australian citizenship nationality that is not even constitutionally permissible and neither was with their consent. Likewise, lawyers (so also judges) who were admitted to the bar under oath to the British Crown somehow now would be serving a FICTIONAL Queen of Australia. It means that the current Governor-General Q Bryce as a lawyer likely was admitted to the Bar under the British Crown and natural born so and now without any change of oath somehow now is serving the purported Queen of Australia! His Honour Wood J County court of Victoria in the 6-2-2008 reason of judgment stated; QUOTE The sovereign power is Her Majesty the Queen in right in the State of Victoria rather than Her Majesty the
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Queen in right of the Commonwealth of Australia. END QUOTE . QUOTE As such, His Honour held that not the Queen of Australia but that it was the British Crown itself which provided sovereign powers. However, the colonial powers were provided by the British Crown and the Federal Constitution, The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900(UK) also was the British Crown. With the High Court of Australia however having declared that since 1986 the Queen of Australia applies then it cannot be that laws enacted by the State of Victoria are continuing under the British crown while the laws enacted under the Commonwealth of Australia since 1986 are under the Queen of Australia. Indeed, where in Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia made clear that Heather Hill was a alien being born under the British Crown then it cannot be that Commonwealth law provides for Australian citizenship under the Queen of Australia and then the State using the British Crown enforces this Australian citizenship to appoint police, judges, Members of State Parliament, etc, as then the police, judges, Members of State Parliament all have sworn alliance to the Queen of Australia and not having sworn alliance to the British Crown in which name it seeks to enforce legislation in the name of the British Crown. The UNREPRESENTED Defendant has also included on the CD filed on 15 November 2006 in the Folder 41 other relevant material the subfolder78B 021204 which included the document Form 69-78B-2.doc being the Section 78B that was before the County Court of Victoria and used by Mr. G. H. Schorel0-Hlavka in his successful appeals on 19 July 2006 which in paragraph 17 refers to the Supreme Court Moller decision regarding the oath, etc. While His Honour Wood J did not seem to understand and/or comprehend how critical the federal issues were to the defence of the UNREPRESENTED Defendant, it was not for His Honour Wood to assume because of Authorities, no matter how misconceived they were, that therefore there was jurisdiction without canvasses in details the considerable set out the UNREPRESENTED Defendant had placed before the Court in her submissions and upon which His Honour Gullaci J based his 15 November 2006 orders. END QUOTE . QUOTE * So what was the Moller decision about? . **#** Well let quote a part of the judgment; Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners [1999] VSCA 116 (30 July 1999) QUOTE Sometime during 1992 or 1993 the appellant made inquiries about becoming an Australian citizen. He then learned that it would be necessary for him to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen. The appellant is, however, a staunch republican and did not then pursue his application to become an Australian citizen, believing that any oath of allegiance should be to Australia rather than to the Queen. END QUOTE And QUOTE On 24 January 1994 the procedure for obtaining Australian citizenship changed so that applicants were no longer required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen but were instead required to make a pledge to Australia. Accordingly, in February 1995, the applicant became an Australian citizen.
END QUOTE . The latter assumes that Moller became an Australian citizens as a NATIONALITY even so it is not a nationality at all! 5 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I shall also support the amendment of Dr. Quick, and I trust that it will be carried. I cannot conceive that in the adoption of legislation on this subject Parliament would do aught else than make the definition uniform and of general application. If there was any necessity for making that clear, the insertion of the words "uniform citizenship of the Commonwealth" would accomplish that, but I hardly think it is necessary. I am impressed with the importance of taking power as occasion arises to define what shall constitute citizenship of the Commonwealth; and the Bill at present is altogether deficient in regard to giving any power to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate on this subject. It seems to me it is a very difficult matter, and one with which we should not attempt to deal here, but rather should refer it to those who, when necessity arises to adopt some legislation on the subject, will have all the facts before them, and may reasonably be supposed to be able to make the best provision for the purpose in connexion with the subject. My honorable friend (Mr. Glynn) referred to the principle which he said obtained, I think, in Germany, where only native-born Germans, or those who are naturalized in the empire, are admitted to the privileges of citizenship. I asked in the course of his remarks how would that apply to citizens of the Commonwealth. It is a very difficult thing to deal with. If you provide that only those shall be citizens of the Commonwealth who were born in it or have been naturalized, you will undoubtedly be putting too strict a limitation on citizenship. It would be simply monstrous that those who are born in England should in any way be subjected to the slightest disabilities. It is impossible to contemplate the exclusion of natural-born subjects of this character; but, on the other hand, we must not forget, that there are other native-born British subjects whom we are far from desiring to see come here in any considerable numbers. For instance, I may refer to Hong Kong Chinamen. They are born within the realm of Her Majesty, and are therefore native-born British subjects. Sir EDWARD BRADDON .-Are British treaty ports British territory? 35 Mr. KINGSTON .-Hong Kong is undoubtedly a British possession, and a Hong Kong Chinaman is undoubtedly a native-born British subject. Thus, honorable members will see what difficulties might arise if the privileges of citizenship of the Commonwealth were extended to all British subjects. If that were done, we should be landed in a difficulty against which it is well to provide. I think the very best, thing under all the circumstances is to do-what is recommended by Dr. Quick, and give to the Federal Parliament power to, legislate on this subject as occasion arises. I have no fear whatever but that they will make wise provisions on the subject-provisions uniform throughout the Commonwealth-for extending to all British subjects those privileges which they ought to possess, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the Commonwealth. Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would like to point out to Dr. Quick that he proposes to give a power to the Commonwealth to legislate in regard to a matter which is not mentioned from the beginning to the end of the Constitution. The word "citizen" is not used from beginning to end in this Constitution, and it is now proposed to give power to legislate regarding citizenship. [start page 1761]
10
15
20
25
30
40
45
10
15
END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I only wish to say a word or two about this proposal. I think that Dr. Quick will probably see that his amendment may be raising a very serious difficulty on the one hand, or else that it is unnecessary on the other. I quite agree with him as to the necessity under some circumstances of giving some definition as to what shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, but underlying the whole of that is this fundamental principle: That the citizens of the states are the citizens of the Commonwealth. That is the fundamental principle we must have regard to, and I ask my honorable friend to say whether a citizen of the Commonwealth is not a citizen of the state? END QUOTE . It should be clear that the citizenship issue is totally misconceived both by the judges of the High Court of Australia, the judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria, politicians all around, etc. etc. . CHAPTER 03 NOT VOTING IN BANANA REPUBLIC INSPECTOR-RIKATI & What is the -Australian way of life- really? A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 QUOTE
20
25
FORM 69 NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTION MATTER UNDER SECTION 78B of the JUDICIARY ACT 1903 MAGISTRATES COURT AT HEIDELBERG No. GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA Defendant of 2002 O 73 r 1 High Court Rules
30
35
and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION Plaintiff
40
NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER 1. The Defendant GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA gives notice that the proceedings involves a matter arising under the constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of section 78B of the judiciary Act 1903.
45 2. That the Defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court at Heidelberg to hear the matters arising of the proceedings instituted by the applicant in regard of matters relating to the PURPORTED Federal general election on 10 November 2001. 50 3. The said Magistrates Court adjourned matter, on 16 September 2002, for hearing of the question of legal jurisdiction to be heard on 4 December 2002. 4. The outline of the case at hand and is as follows;
(a)
The Defendant was born on 7 June 1947 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands of parents being Dutch nationals and as such, the Defendant by birth was a Dutch national.
END QUOTE And QUOTE 5. That I seek this Court to adjourn these proceedings and to place before the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA a CASE STATED as to have the High Court of Australia to first determine the following matters; (i) Can a person obtain Australian citizenship without first obtaining State citizenship (Quasi States being Territories included)? If so, then by which constitutional valid manner? Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to define citizenship? If so; (a) under which provision? And (b) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or (c) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia? Does the Commonwealth have constitutional powers to declare and/or grant citizenship? If so, (d) under which provision? And (e) in regard of aliens and immigrants; or (f) in regard to any person within (b), as well as and including those born within Australia? Does the Commonwealth have the constitutional powers to determine the rights of a resident in a State to obtain citizenship of such State? If so, by which constitutional powers? If the adaptation by the State of Victoria of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 were to be deemed valid, then has the Commonwealth by this the legislative powers to determine the political rights of the citizens of the State of Victoria, where purportedly they have no State citizenship. If yes, would then the Commonwealth be able to dictate who shall be electors by what conditions and override any Constitution provision that may exist within the Victorian Constitution? Where the Constitution of Victoria purports to adapt the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, is then that part of the Victorian Constitution Federal law and can only be amended or otherwise altered by Commonwealth legislation? If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES for so far it deals with granting citizenship to any particular person, can then the adaptation of this part by State nevertheless be held legally enforceable? If the purported granting of Australian citizenship within the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is ULTRA VIRES, then is any State qualification based upon the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 definition of Australian citizenship also ULTRA VIRES?
10
15 (ii)
20
(iii) 25
30
(iv)
(v) 35
40 (vi)
45 (vii)
50
(viii)
(ix)
5 (x)
Where the Defendant was not a State citizen at the time of election being held, then was the Defendant nevertheless a qualified State elector, where the purported Australian citizenship granted to the Defendant on 28 March 1994 was ULTRA VIRES. Where the Defendant was not a State citizen at the time of election being held, then was the Defendant nevertheless a qualified Commonwealth elector, where the purported Australian citizenship granted to the Defendant on 28 March 1994 was ULTRA VIRES.
10
15
20
END QUOTE And QUOTE (xxxi) Where the framers held that political rights are obtained arise by virtue his being a citizen of a state there is dual citizenship being both State citizenship and Australian citizenship, then can the Commonwealth, for so far this is deemed to be within its legislative powers grant any person Australian citizenship and so political rights of voting (See section 41 Commonwealth Constitution) in Commonwealth elections? If such voting rights in Commonwealth elections cant be given is that then a bar to granting Australian citizenship? (xxxii) Does a person upon obtaining State citizenship AUTOMATICALLY obtain Australian citizenship? If not, why not? END QUOTE . Neither the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit submitting on 4 December 2002 to have the matter transferred to the High Court of Australia, which with my consent was so ordered, albeit then the Commonwealth of Australia (as Prosecutor) failed to proceed with this, or the AttorneyGenerals of the States/Territories in any way whatsoever challenged my numerous submissions and as referred to above finally on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria made orders to the effect to uphold my cases, without any reservations, including that constitutionally the Commonwealth of Australia cannot force anyone to vote, as the Framers of the Constitution on 15-4-1897 specifically refused to give such legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia. . There simply is no constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship! And the Framers of the Constitution specifically defeated Dr Quicks amendment to provide such legislative powers! . Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every clause, or nearly every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of those clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct negative, and I think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion as they may think fit if I ruled this out of order. END QUOTE .
25
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says: One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution. END QUOTE And Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates 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 . Therefore the constitution cannot be amended by the Parliaments and/or the judges! As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the High Court of Australia was to declare a law to be INTRA VIRES then it was not because the High Court of Australia enlarged the Constitution but merely declared what the constitution already all along provided for! Anything else would be to amend the constitution in wording and/or application and this was beyond the powers of the High Court of Australia to do so. Therefore any judicial decision of the High Court of Australia has to be confined within what the Framers of the Constitution intended at the time of federation and anything like a progressive change to independence not only never was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution but in fact made clear the constitution didnt permit and was prohibited by the way the Constitution was framed! . HANSARD 5-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates 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
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
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 . Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
10
15
20
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 . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE . Fancy having 7 judges in the High Court of Australia still not being able to agree (Sue v Hill ) with each other what the constitution stands for and this after more then 100-years of federation! This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent! They tried to make it a very simple constitution but lawyers as they are like to twist to infringe upon the constitution! . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament." END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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 . Once again: HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTE . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
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 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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 . HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten, END QUOTE And 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 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 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 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
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
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 . The politics is that the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament is very limited in its legislative powers as being a POLITICAL UNION by the colonies (now States) and so trying to achieve independence is that the politicians can exercise more powers like those in the British parliament. Hence, their aim for so called independence is more for more power. When therefore the British government declared that Australians were foreigners the Australian politicians grabbed the opportunity to pretend that from now on Australians would be Australian nationals. The nationalization act later was renamed nationalization act and citizenship act and later to citizenship act. The fact that the Framers of the Constitution specifically denied the Commonwealth of Australia to declare/define citizenship was of no concern to the ever power hungry politicians. But in brief, " Australian citizenship" is a term coined by the Framers of the Constitution (as such prior to federation) and referred to the status of a person to reside in Australia irrespective of his/her nationality. At that time Colonies used to nationalise aliens to become British subjects (British nationals) but those who didn't naturalise were still colonial citizens and so Australian citizens. After Federation state citizens would automatically be Australian citizens, and again nothing to do with nationality. Within the Subsection 51(xix) of the constitution the British Parliament allowed the Commonwealth of Australia to naturalise aliens to become British nationals, and this never was amended and as such remains in place. The Framers of the Constitution specifically stated they were permitted to do so on behalf of the British Government. British subject, to make persons subjects of the British Empire. , with the consent of the Imperial authority , For example, the Framers of the Constitution promised the Chinese, for example, that if they voted for federation they still would retain their franchise (even so they were of Chinese nationality. As such, at the time Chinese nationals who were Colonial citizens upon federation became State citizens and so Australian citizens even so not being nationalised. . What therefore should be clear that the states with their internal legislative powers and the Commonwealth with its external legislative powers could not abrogate the principles embedded in the constitution to be a POLITICAL UNION under the British Crown. The judges of the High Court of Australia may have fancied themselves to exercise judicial powers but the truth is they didnt. The Sue v Hill case is a NULLITY without legal force as it was not within the judicial powers of the judges to determine matters in defiance of their judicial constrains to act within the ambit of the constitution. The judges only can act as interpreters as to what the intention of the Framers of the Constitution was and not how they fancy themselves to twist its meanings. . EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DONT! . This is why the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) is so vital, this as it is intended to set up education facilities so when judges in future are to adjudicate on constitutional issues they at least have some appropriate training as to constitutional matters and never again a judge abstain from handing down a judgment on basis not knowing the constitutional issues litigated before the Court. The nonsense of having the constitution amended pending perhaps what kind of political background or association a judge may have never should have been permitted to occur. .
10
15
20
25
30
35
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 1900 (UK) didnt provide any option for a republic and it should therefore be clear that the con-job of the High Court of Australia in the Sue v Hill case is one I view is a very serious matter of TREASON. . HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE People have a right to know their true nationality and not being conned into a misconception. It may very well be that the nationality issue could be very critical when a child is orphaned and then the nationality can determine who can exercise judicial powers as to the future of the child and also as to the immediately care to be provided to a child. Likewise so with when an Australian is abroad and is in difficulties. Australians are Australians not because they reside in the Commonwealth of Australia but because they reside in the continent of Australia. (If one can call it a continent rather then landmass). Australians are not defined by their nationality as such because as the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if (as was at the time an issue) Queensland did not join the federation it didnt then stop them being Australians. As such, being an Australian has and had nothing to do with federation! It is not a nationality but merely identifies a person to the place of residence. . Again in 1982 the High Court of Australia approved the deportation of Mr Pochi on the basis he didnt have Australian citizenship and this clearly was before the purported Australian Act 1986 (Cth & UK) existed! Hence, it is utter and sheer nonsense to claim that somehow the Australia Act 1986 gave us a nationality or independence, etc, because it was and still is an elaborate con-job as Australians born in the Commonwealth of Australia or naturalized are and remain to be British nationals. There is a lot more to it but I think you got the picture. . QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ONE NATIONAL CIRCUIT BARTON Reference: c09/54418
40
Mr Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka 107 Graham Road VIEWBANK VICTORIA 3084 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
45 Thank you for your email of 24 October 2009 to the Prime Minister regarding the Commonwealths power to legislate over citizenship. I have been asked to reply on the Prime Ministers behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so. 50 Australian citizenship is defined in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Ordinarily, the Government does not disclose its legal advice, including on constitutional issues, I refer you, however, to the following passage from paragraph 4,179 of the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission , 1988:
While the Federal Parliament has not been granted an express power to make laws with respect to nationality and citizenship, it has been assumed that the Parliament does have such a power. The power is either implied in section 51(xix) [of the Constitution] or is one of the implied national powers. Its exercise by the Federal Parliament, by enactment of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has certainly not been called into question in any case before the High Court of Australia. Yours sincerely Brendan MacDowell A/g Assistant Secretary Legal Policy Branch 7 January 2010 QUOTE 7-1-2010 CORRESPONDENCE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised as lying at the very basis of this Constitution. END QUOTE . 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 . Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTES 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., we are all alike subjects of the British Crown. END QUOTES . The USA kind of citizenship is different then that of the Commonwealth of Australia and as such do not confuse those. Like it or not, and regardless if the British Parliament and the Commonwealth of Australia agree with it or not we are still British nationals! As such the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth & UK) did have no change into this because the Commonwealth was already pretending there was an Australian citizenship as a nationality and the High Court of Australia in the Pochi case of 1982 already then upheld the deportation (albeit I view wrongly but that is another issue) referring to Australian Citizenship being a nationality. This was clearly 4-years before the introduction of the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth & UK) and as such people seeking to argue that because of the Australia act they now have a nationality obviously do not comprehend they have been conned. .
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON .-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question ; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union. END QUOTE . Now, take for example the judges who were presiding over the Sue v Hill cases. They all were to my knowledge born before 1986 and also lawyers having pledged their alliance to the British Crown. I am not aware that any of those judges in the Sue v Hill case renounced their alliance to the British Crown, and in fact were sitting as judges under the British Crown. Then to me it was TREASON for them to hand down the decision as they did against Heather Hill. The issue of judicial powers also is that none of the judges exercise judicial powers within the provisions of the constitution to declare the British Crown to be alien as they were bound to adjudicate within the provisions of the Constitution and nothing in it gives any judicial officer powers to amend or otherwise interfere with the application of the constitution. The argument that over passing of time the Commonwealth of Australia became an independent country is sheer and utter nonsense. The Commonwealth of Australia . Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir JOHN FORREST .-What is a citizen? A British subject? Mr. WISE.-I presume so. Sir JOHN FORREST .-They could not take away the rights of British subjects. Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth." I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case. Sir JOHN FORREST .-He was an alien. Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders. Mr. KINGSTON .-That it had the right of keeping him out. .
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights. Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races. END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON .-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in constitutional law than Mr. Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has been the subject of more or less debate and discussion, and will be until the end of time. The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy at all times if occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle that there should be a definition of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr. Quick or by Mr. Barton. I will be quite content. The principle is what I am contending for: The principle that our labours will be incomplete unless we make the rights of citizens or subjects in one state to extend to the citizens of another state who may go from one state to another. There ought to be no possibility of any state imposing a disqualification on a person in the holding of property, or in the enjoyment of any civil right, simply because be happens to belong to another state. That would not give us the uniformity of citizenship we all desire, and therefore I am willing that the word "citizenship" should be defined as Dr. Quick suggests, with perhaps some modification. I also support the suggestion from the Chair that the two propositions might be considered together. The clause would do something to meet the difficulty, not perhaps finally or conclusively, as Mr. Isaacs, said, but at any rate to a large extent and almost completely. [start page 1788] END QUOTE . We find that while an Attorney-General is supposed to advise a Governor-General as to the constitutional validity of proposed legislation submitted for royal assent the reality is that the Attorney-General generally hasnt got a clue as he doesnt even know his own nationality! Likewise despite the High Court of Australia 14-11-2006 WorkChoices decision reality is fast different. . Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: I have raised this point at every opportunity. I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention, but I certainly shall move-an amendment, because the clause is not in accordance with the general provisions of Federation. The States composing the Federation should have full power to deal with local affairs. Essentially, all external relations are taken out of their jurisdiction. I do think they ought to have the power themselves to say what the Constitution under which they live shall be. END QUOTE . Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-Of course, the absolute control by a state of everything within its own borders is retained by this Constitution, except in respect to such matters as are expressly handed over to the Commonwealth. END QUOTE . Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
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 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 . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be. END QUOTE . Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. END QUOTE . HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given. END QUOTE . HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. END QUOTE . HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitutional Convention QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria) There will, of course, be no funds in the commonwealth at that stage; but I apprehend that the governor-general will act in the hope of being recouped any expenses afterwards to which he may be put. END QUOTE . Hansard 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. GLYNN: It is felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes, in the oath that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition of the Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through which on every public occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our domestic observances, in the offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in the time-honored motto of the nation. END QUOTE . Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST: We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired his appointment. END QUOTE
. Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE 5 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that the only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth. END QUOTE . Legislation such as the purported Governor-General Act 1974 as to the conduct of the Governor-General and those engaged by the governor-General within prerogative powers of the Crown cannot be deemed for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth, as it is in my view an attempt to interfere with the Governor-Generals right to manage his/her office as may be desirable. . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates 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 . Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power? 35 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry. END QUOTE . Thu, 31 Oct 2002 QUOTE Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka Thank you for your letter. There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case involving women or a male judge in a rape case. Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required.
10
15
20
25
30
40
45
50
Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged. Sincerely, Michael Kirby END QUOTE . Week it seems to me that the Governor-Generals Act 1974 so to say is up the creek and that without a referendum the commonwealth of Australia (so the Federal parliament) lacks certain legislative powers and cannot interfere with what is essential a prerogative power of Her Majesty the Queen to employ a person as she desires. There are obviously numerous other issues , not related specifically to the office of the Governor-General albeit the governor-General seems to provide purported royal assent where none should be given to unconstitutional legislation such as in regard of the following: The Constitution Convention Debates makes clear that WATER that falls on a property belongs to the owner of that property. However, the usage of the WATER must be in such manner that it does not interfere with the rights of others. More over, that by federation. it means that riparian rights are applicable. I understand that the Commonwealth with agreement of the States has discontinued the Inter-State Commission, but no such powers existed for the Commonwealth and the State to do so and hence the Commonwealth of Australia itself is clearly at fault in that regard also, as are the States. The Governor-General as CEO should address this issues also! QUOTE Commission obligatory. END QUOTE And QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS .-But the Inter-State Commission must be absolutely independent of Parliament. END QUOTE
.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
While the Governor-General purportedly gave royal assent to legislation containing the terms; as the deceased persons husband or wife or partner on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis leaving more than one spouse to a spouse of the deceased person under this Act among the spouses reality is that the Federal Parliament cannot legislate as to the terms of conditions how the Monarch appoints (That is in a valid manner according to the legal principles embedded in the Constitution and not otherwise) as it is a prerogative power not subject to legislation other then the amount of salary for the Governor-General while in office and not beyond. I view it appalling that the term leaving more than one spouse even was considered in the first place as making out that a governor-General now needs to have more then one husband as if the Governor-General (at least implied as I view it) is some sex maniac. Surely we can do without such inferences? I have for long pursue that what is need is that under the Governor-General (not under the Government as to avoid political interference) there must be funding for the OFFICE-OF-THEGUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!) so that finally the governor-General is able to obtain non-political clouded advice what really is constitutionally applicable and prohibited, and also how really the office of the governor-General exercises its powers, duties, etc.
.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

Governor General's Legal Position

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Governor General's Legal Position

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5

END QUOTE . QUOTE 48 Allowance to members

QUOTE 66 Salaries of Ministers 5

Governor-General Act 1974

END QUOTE And QUOTE 3 Salary of Governor-General

END QUOTE And QUOTE 30 4 Allowances

END QUOTE And QUOTE

Proclamation shall mean Proclamation by the Governor-General

published in the Gazette;

17A Paper or document purporting to be printed by Government Printer

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION Plaintiff

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi