ISSUE: 20171107- Re: Has Malcolm Turnbull inherited British citizenship, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Our constitution being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a British
constitution and s128 referendum powers only permit to have part 9 of this Act amended by a
successful referendum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law
QUOTE
Some thought the single Imperial status of British subject as increasingly inadequate to deal with a
Commonwealth with independent member states. In 1948, the Commonwealth Heads of Government
agreed that each member would adopt a national citizenship (Canada had already done so), but that
the existing status of the British subject would continue as a common status held by all Commonwealth
citizens.
END QUOTE

Obviously regardless what the Heads of Governments may have agreed upon it cannot result to
somehow give the Commonwealth legislative powers not permitted by the constitution.
For the British citizenship is now a nationality, whereas within our constitution it is the place of
abode not of allegiance/nationality.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of Parliament act
capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses choose to agree to it-let
the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about altering the Constitution, but
trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted when it is within the Constitution.
The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be put in a position superior to the
Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section
of a state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to
aliens. Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each
person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is
meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I
am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation
of this clause at all. But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of
Mr. O'Connor and those who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary
provision, and one which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it
is much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that
we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page
1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to
be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth
Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put
this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than 1,000 a year should be a citizen of the
Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
p1 6-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
END QUOTE
https://www.geni.com/people/Bruce-Turnbull/6000000036399275066

Bruce Bligh Turnbull

Birthdate: November 2, 1926 (56)
Birthplace: Tumut, New South Wales, Australia
Death: November 11, 1982 (56)
Barrington Tops, Gloucester, New South Wales, Australia
Place of Burial: Aberdeen, New South Wales, Australia
Immediate Family: Son of Frederick Bligh Turnbull and Mary Agnes Turnbull
Husband of Judith Turnbull and Coral Magnolia Turnbull
Father of Malcolm Bligh Turnbull

As such, when one check through the various enactments of the British Parliament then it is clear
that Bruce Bligh Turnbull (father of Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Prime Minister) was a British
subject with British nationality when Malcolm was born. As the 1948 Act makes clear a British
subject is a Commonwealth citizen, this means also an added citizenship other than being a
state and commonwealth of Australia citizens.
It means that Malcolm Bligh Turnbull in my view by his father was already a British national at
birth, and for that any other Member of Parliament whose parent(s) was a British subject. And
in that regard so also the judges who were sitting in judgment in Sue v Hill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law
QUOTE
In spite of the fact that the 1981 act repealed most of the provisions of 1948 act and the nationality
clauses in subsequent independence acts, the acquisition of new categories of British nationality created
by the 1981 act was often dependent on nationality status prior to 1 January 1983, the date the 1981 act
came into effect, so many of the provisions of the 1948 act and subsequent independence acts are still
relevant.
END QUOTE

As I quoted already way back in my 14-8-2017 PRESS RELEASE:

QUOTE
Commonwealth citizenship.
139. --(1) In accordance with the position of Singapore within the Commonwealth, every person who is a
citizen of Singapore enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a Commonwealth citizen in common
with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.
(2) Any existing law shall, except so far as Parliament otherwise provides, apply in relation to a citizen of the
Republic of Ireland who is not also a Commonwealth citizen as it applies in relation to a Commonwealth
citizen.
END QUOTE
https://www.geni.com/search?names=Coral+Lansbury
Coral Magnolia Turnbull
Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, United States
(1929 - 1991)

While any ambition, if there was any, for Malcolm Bligh Turnbull to become President of the US
of A is clearly out of the window in view he was not born in the USA, but one may also ask if his
mother did provide him with nationality rights of the US of a or other countries. After all if she
moved to the UK then he might be also entitled to British citizenship by this also.
What ought to be considered is that when you rely upon the provisions of Section 44 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) then the word citizen is not a meaning
to nationality but the place of above.

p2 6-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
What therefore must be understood is that the word citizenship under British law since about
1948 was referring to nationality whereas for the Commonwealth of Australia it wasnt.
While there might be all kind of conventions in practice in the end they do not legitimatise any
unconstitutional conduct and as such citizenship for all purposes and intent when dealing with
our constitution has got absolutely nothing to do with nationality.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/2015/
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT (ALLEGIANCE TO AUSTRALIA) ACT 2015 (NO. 166, 2015)
QUOTE
Purpose of this Act
This Act is enacted because the Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common
bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible
with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and
repudiated their allegiance to Australia
END QUOTE

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE GOT Members of Parliament who seem to perceive that
citizenship is one of ALLEGIANCE where it got nothing to do with it, that is constitutionally,
as any alien can be a citizen but remaining to keep his/her only foreign nationality.
As I understood it Malcolm Bligh Turnbull was making it an issue he was a constitutional lawyer
and yet it seems to me he is a basket case when it comes to that. Is it that he doesnt want every
Member of Parliament to be checked as to his/her nationalities because he might then be exposed
to have and remain to be a British subject/Commonwealth citizen?
While I as a constitutionalist would hold that it is well outside the intention of the framers of the
constitution to oust a person like Barnaby Joyce, Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and many others
because the constitution must be interpreted to what is stand for by the intentions of 1900 when
enacted, nevertheless you cannot have it to oust some people and not others for the same.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:

"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."

END QUOTE
Barton J,
the parliament cannot give the word a meaning not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
p3 6-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
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 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 Mr. BARTON QUOTE .
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

It seems to me that those with Australian born parents are not shielded from s44 if they pursue
the nonsense that citizenship constitutes nationality.
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 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

It ought to be clear that constitutionally that is citizenship is not a nationality and while other
countries might use citizenship as a form of nationality this however cannot somehow via a
backdoor way give the commonwealth of Australia legislative powers it never had. Where the
commonwealth albeit unconstitutionally persist to pervert/twist the meaning of citizenship then
well let this then apply equally against Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and others.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
p4 6-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati