20171116-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Compulsory Voting Versus SSM Survey, Etc & The Constitution

ISSUE: 20171116- Re: Compulsory voting versus SSM survey, etc & the constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
As I understood it there was even a High Court of Australia case to prevent the so called SSM
survey to proceed. Yet, now that the survey showed more yes then no indications we have
politicians and other falling over each other to claim victory. The survey not being actually a
vote but merely for indicating once views can it then be sufficient to justify legislation, as after
all PM Malcolm Turnbull made clear the people have voted (even so nit was not a vote) and
Parliament is bound by this, then why was the same argument not applied to the unconstitutional
invasion into Iraq? I get it, politicians are selling themselves out to what suits them.
With a vote there are safeguards to protect the secrecy of voting. However, with a survey it
may have been manipulated that even if the survey was found overwhelmingly to be in support
of opposition to amend the marriage law no transparency exist to check this, as is applicable with
ordinary voting in elections.
Let us not forget that on 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth in AEC v
Schorel-Hlavka in both appeals regarding FAILURE TO VOTE. My 4 December 2002 court
order (by consent) regarding the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS (That
included the legal challenge against the validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act
1948) still remains to be outstanding. The Commonwealth never had nor has any constitutional
legislative powers to define/declare citizenship of anyone natural born within the Commonwealth
of Australia. All those politicians losing their seats about the citizenship issue now may regret
not having complied with the court order that could have avoided the High Court of Australia
twisted/perverted interpretation of s44. So politicians ignored my writings, worse a court order,
and well they now suffer their self-inflicted harm.
If indeed 72% of deemed adult electors casted their views and of which about 62% of them were
in favour to amend the Marriage Act to allow homosexuals to get married then it means that the
minority succeeds. After all 62% (7.8Million responses) of 72 % is not a majority at all. If
roughly about 16.7 Million people (give or take a few) electors returned an about 7 million yes
views then this is well short of the majority. It has been claimed that with a referendum the
referendum would have succeeded. I do not view this as such, this is because with compulsory
voting (regardless it is unconstitutional) the voting result could have been dramatically different.
Then people in secrecy could have voted whereas now people might have been or felt to be
forced to support the yes campaign because of others in the family unable to have their moment
of secrecy to fill in the survey. What we have is some lesbian Member of Parliament like various
other homosexual Members of Parliament) going on and on about her kind of sex life being some
personal issue converted to being some prominent governing issue rather than to deal with real
important issues facing society. When politicians are morally bankrupt then then I view they
should get out of parliament so more competent persons can represent the constituents more
appropriately. Here we have Australian soldiers risking life and limb to represent Australia and
returning at times in disabilities and all we seem to have parliamentarians to be concerned about
is their kind of sex life they engage in to be made public for all to know and forced to accept this.
Dont worry about the disabled returned soldier who may be dying on the side of the road in
poverty, etc.
p1 16-11-2017 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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-ssm/9145636
QUOTE
INSPECTOR-RIKATI
As I indicated in my sets outs published at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati there are numerous issues to be considered.
The SSM survey was a con-job in that it was not about same sex marriage but also about same 'gender' marriage. it was
not a 'secret' vote but one the confidentiality of a polling booth was denied and so people felt compelled to choose a
view as might have been dictated by others. On 19 July 2006 I in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka comprehensively defeated the
Commonwealth (and States) in regard of compulsory voting. If the SSM survey is so good then why have compulsory
voting at all, I wonder. Or is it because political parties are funded with the first preference system to have a better
advantage then most INDEPENDENT candidates? If the SSM is all about love, is this then implying that people who live
together but do not desire to enter into a marriage then implied do not love each other? The commonwealth by s41 has no
constitutional validity to hold any electoral role and one has to ask why teenagers were excluded from this survey where
it will considerably affect them as the SSM campaign indoctrinates them with gender fluidity, etc? The majority of the
electors either indicated a NO change, had their survey answer not accepted, didn't return their survey form and/or had
for other reasons their survey form excluded. It means that the professed YES campaign did not in my view succeed to
achieve the majority of electors to desire to amend the Marriage Act. In my view our constitution being a British
Constitution Act subject to the Interpretation Act 1889 (UK) must be interpreted to be regarding one man and one woman
marriage as homosexuality while well known to occur for centuries were not considered to be part of marriage. One thing
for sure, the lawyers/judges and not to forget the undertakers will be the once most to gain with homosexuals getting
married, divorced and well with AIDS spreading will keep funeral directors employed.
END QUOTE
.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
34 Qualifications of members
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives shall
be as follows:
(i) he must be of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of
members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such elector, and must have been
for three years at the least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is
chosen;
(ii) he must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for at least five years naturalized under a
law of the United Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of the
Commonwealth, or of a State.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our
own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above
Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE
The British Commonwealth of Nations (1931 to 1949)
After 1949 to become the Commonwealth of Nations till 2012, thereafter it became
The Commonwealth.
Still, the issue remains that the constitution was not amended and therefore British
subject remains to be as was applicable at the time of the enactment.
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.
END QUOTE
Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY:
These must seem almost too daring speculations; but, in point of fact, we are marching on to an
altogether new epoch, to new times, and the very essence of the constitution must be this: I heard one
hon. gentleman here state that we must remember that we are legislating for the future; and I agree
with him if he meant that we are legislating in such a manner as to enable the future to legislate for
itself-that it is our object that freedom in every respect shall be given, so that as each generation
comes on they shall say, "Blessed be those ancestors of ours who have left us this freedom, so that
nothing can take place-no changes in the state of the world-but we possess all powers to define the
measures most necessary to bring peace and tranquillity at every epoch it comes on." That is the real
duty which we should aim to fulfil; and it is only by allowing the people to speak, and at all times to
declare [start page 140] their views and their wishes, and to have them carefully considered, that we
can insure peace, tranquillity, and prosperity to each country in each successive epoch of time as it
arrives.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of
our labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice
and not to the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political ity, and just action to the
individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
END QUOTE
Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by
the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Clause 44.-Any person:
I. Who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or
adherence, to a foreign power, or has done any act whereby he has become a subject or a citizen, or
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen, of a foreign power; or
II. Who is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, or a public defaulter; or
III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or remission
of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A number of
German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power, especially those who
have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the
words "or who has not since been naturalised as provided in clause 30"?
Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties may be in
force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the very lines I am
citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the same rights and privileges as
he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in
another country, who becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high
powers, he should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come
back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
Clause as read agreed to.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. GLYNN.-
The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Ah Toy v. Musgrove was that an alien had no right to land
here, but that decision does not affect his citizenship after he has landed. Mr. Musgrove, then Secretary
for Customs, prevented Ah Toy from landing. Ah Toy brought an action for assault and battery against him,
but the Privy Council held that that action could not be justified.
END QUOTE

QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
As to the word "person," the British Interpretation Act of 1889, which will be largely applied to the
construction of this statute by the Imperial authorities, provides that where the word "person" is used, unless
the Act otherwise provides, the word "corporation" shall be included.
END QUOTE

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

QUOTE
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.
Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-I think the Commonwealth should keep in its own hands the key of its
own citizenship. Some colonies are somewhat colourblind with regard to immigration, other colonies may be
somewhat deficient in their ideas as to naturalization. If we place in the hands of any state the power of
forcing on the Commonwealth an obnoxious citizenship, we shall be doing very great evil to the
Commonwealth. This power should be in the hands of the Commonwealth; it should itself possess power to
define the conditions on which the citizenship of the Commonwealth shall be given; and the citizenship of
the Commonwealth should not necessarily follow upon the citizenship of any particular state.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-We have provided in this Constitution for the exercise of the rights of
citizenship, so far as the choice of representatives is concerned, and we have given various safe-guards to
individual liberty in the Constitution. We have, therefore, given each resident in the Commonwealth his
political rights, so far as the powers of legislation and administration intrusted to the Commonwealth are
concerned. Let us consider the position. Before the establishment of the Commonwealth, each subject is the
subject of a state. After the Commonwealth is established, every one who acquires political rights-in fact,
every one who is a subject in a state, having certain political rights, has like political rights in the
Commonwealth. 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. I must admit, after looking at a standard authority-Stroud's Judicial Dictionary-that
I cannot find any definition of citizenship as applied to a British subject. No such term as citizen or
citizenship is to be found in the long roll of enactments, so far as I can recollect, that deal with the
position of subjects of the United Kingdom, and I do not think we have been in the habit of using that
term under our own enactments in any of our colonies.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You had it in the Draft Bill.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to objections from
members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is right in not applying [start page
1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to
their ordinary definition as subjects of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character,
inasmuch as citizens of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the
Constitution, we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a citizen or subject of
the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power conferred in these wide terms would
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think
the honorable member intends to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.
END QUOTE

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
Here we had the decimation of the car industry but the Federal Government for one is more
concerned about homosexuality issues then its core issue to protect the general community from
harm by foreigners and foreign powers. People seem to be more informed by the homosexuals as
to their kind of sex lives they have then about if they are constitutionally permitted to be
Members of Parliament. It must be clear that contrary to what I view treasonous conduct of the
High Court of Australia s44 must be interpreted not to be used against British subjects. But who
cares when politicians sex lives seems to be the priority on their agenda for the world to know.

Take for example the issue of the Section 101 Inter-State commission, how many politicians in
the Federal Parliament have pursued compliance to the constitution (shall be) and insisted that
not the Federal executive use monies to pork barrel but that the Inter-State Commission deals
with matters? Well forget it they politicians are too busy baring their souls (fi the have any) to let
people know the kind of sexual activities they are involved in. After all that is more important
than to do the job they were elected for!
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are about to say that an Inter-State Commission shall be appointed to execute
and maintain the Commonwealth provisions relating to trade and commerce. I understand that the
general sense of the Convention is that the restriction to railways and rivers should disappear; that the
Inter-State Commission should deal with commerce throughout the states without any restriction.
Then the clause would read:-
The Parliament shall make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain
within the Commonwealth the provisions of this Constitution relating to commerce.[start page 1526]
That seems to me to be the charter of the Inter-State Commission.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Would you add "and the laws for the time being passed by the
Parliament"?
Mr. BARTON.-I think that is un-necessary. They will have to maintain the constitutional provisions
with regard to trade and commerce. It is obvious that we must give a certain amount of discretion to
Parliament, and Parliament having a commission already in existence will not pass any laws relating to
trade and commerce without leaving the determination of those laws to the Inter State Commission. It
may be only a difference of form, but I think there would be no advantage in adding the words
suggested. We are giving in the Constitution power to the Inter-State Commission to execute and
maintain within the Commonwealth the provisions relating to trade and commerce. Then we have in
Mr. Grant's amendment the determination of certain other matters confided to the Inter-State
Commission, and I understand that the Right Hon. Sir George Turner consented yesterday to have
similar words inserted in his clause. It is clear then that the provisions we are inserting in the
Constitution in relation to trade and commerce will be under the jurisdiction of the Inter-State
Commission, and that is really all we want. We might go further and make some provision as to the
laws, but that is unnecessary. It is inconceivable that Parliament would pass laws, and take away from
the Inter-State Commission the power of adjudicating on them. What I do want to impress on
honorable members is that there is no necessity to say that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. If
we say that Parliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission, then we make it clear that it is the
Parliament, and not the Executive, that is deal with the commission in the first instance and to define
its powers. That is necessary, as we might otherwise find the Executive Government taking this as a
direction to appoint an Inter-State Commission before a statute had been passed, and then there might
be some trouble with the High Court.
END QUOTE
We lack competent federal politicians (too busy about sex issues) who are unable to
understand/comprehend that concurrent legislative powers for the states finished when the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate on a particular subject matter.
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
Where are the Australian labour party priorities to protect workers rights? Well they are more
concerned about sexual issues to be debated then to concern themselves about the constitutional
embedded rights of politicians. And as I understand it the leader sold out the union members
making cosy deals with businesses.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That
would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place
where the contract was made.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they
are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
While the Commonwealth does have the responsibility for the invalid/disabled and not to forget
the lunatics, etc. you will be pressed to find politicians to be concerned about those issues as
SEXUAL relationship is their priority to debate. The message of love and equality seems to
me to be limited to apply to homosexual issues and not for the disabled returned soldier, the
lunatics, etc. After all just let them rot seems to me the politicians mantra.
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-Your amendment would not touch the class who are not aliens.
Mr. WISE.-Yes, it would, because the Commonwealth would have no power to pass any law relating
to the immigration of any section of the community unless they were aliens. The Commonwealth
Parliament is to have no power to deal with the movement of population except paupers, lunatics, and
aliens, and under section 52 it is to exercise full powers with regard to any or all of those three classes. All
that is designed by my amendment-and it appears to me that some such power is necessary-is that if the
Commonwealth Parliament undertakes to deal with the movement of population in regard to one or more of
those three classes-paupers, aliens, and lunatics-the persons whose movements are fettered by the Federal
Parliament shall have the right to look to the Federal Parliament for protection, and for the full security that
the Federal Parliament can give. The words of the clause are vague, and not very easily construed. Of course,
if the leader of the Convention prefers it, I will postpone the formal submission of my amendment so as to
give further time for the consideration of the matter.
END QUOTE

It should be clear we lack proper competent Members of Parliament who can ensure we are
governed within the true meaning and application of the constitution. In my view the Framers of
the Constitution would so to say turn in their graves if they knew how sexual obsessed politicians
are and spending their time about sexual issues rather than to what really should be attended to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5012469/AFP-busy-guarding-Turnbull-s-mansion-drug-
busts.html
REVEALED: 23 police operations, including a 1.6-tonne cocaine bust, were transferred or

CANCELLED because officers had to protect Malcolm Turnbull's $50m mansion
AFP has to guard Malcolm Turnbull's $50m mansion because he still lives there
In my view this is a violation of s44 of the constitution for PM Malcolm Turnbull to have an
arrangement with the Australian Federal Police to guard his Sydney Mansion this as it is not and
cannot be his official residence. For that the same with former PM Julia Gillard having bollards
at cost of taxpayers placed at her private property (sold later with a profit).
In my view it is a theft of taxpayers monies to employ Australian federal Police at a private
owned mansion. Constitutionally the official residence must be in Canberra. As such any private
property elsewhere is outside the function of the Australian federal Police. Indeed it is a State
Government judicial area where the Australian Federal Police has no business to be there.
Let us stop the rot and accept there never was any voting by the electors as to amend the
marriage act as at most there was a survey and so in what I view a very questionable manner.
Those who b eat the drums of success may just one day walk behind a hearse to burry someone
who died of medical issues as result of a homosexual relationship achieved by the politicians
promoting homosexual relationships while not care less about those who really suffered.

QUOTE Mr. HOWE:
They show that the thrift practised by the people of Australia is unparalleled in the history of the world. But
there is another side to this question, and a very gloomy and sorrowful side indeed. There are records of
bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances corrupt, management, when the hard earnings of the
people and the savings of a lifetime have been swept away-have melted away like snow before the
noonday sun. Through this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided for
their old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of charity, and many of
them have had to accept even amongst ourselves the pauper's lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in
any other country is to the deserving poor one of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HOWE (South Australia).-I have listened with great pleasure indeed to the speeches of the two
last speakers. It is so very seldom that they are in accord with each other on questions of this kind, that
I could not help marvelling that they should come together on a question of this magnitude. The
honorable member (Mr. Symon said it was monstrous, for a civilized community like the Australians,
to place a brand of degradation upon those alien races once we admit them. I think our first [start page
251] duty is to consider the welfare of our own kindred. Do you ever find British labour going to these
eastern countries and competing with the labour there? Certainly not.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. HOWE.-Yes; I think the cry throughout Australia will be our first duty is to ourselves, and that
we should as far as possible make Australia a home for Australians and the British race alone. It is not
our duty even to go out of our way to create competition between the aliens residing in our midst at the
present time against our own flesh and blood. I shall support the contention advocated with so much
force and ability by the Victorian members, as I consider that the welfare of the colonies, as against
alien cheap labour, depends upon the local laws being maintained in full force and vigour until a
federal law is passed.
QUOTE
Mr Howe was the person relentlessly pursuing and so successfully for the constitutional
provisions of invalid and age pensions. He was of calibre to pursue the rights and best interest of
Australians.
This is what I view is missing by the brand of politicians we have. We got rorting, egoistic,
politicians more interested in sexual issues then about the plight of fellow Australians.
In the end I maintain the view that the Federal Parliament lacks the legislative powers to amend
the marriage Act to include homosexuals to be permitted in the concept of marriage. That is what
I have stated all along and well time will tell.
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. Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel
legislation. Ours is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth
powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the
Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
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!)


20171116-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Compulsory Voting Versus SSM Survey, Etc & The Constitution

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

20171116-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE - Re Compulsory Voting Versus SSM Survey, Etc & The Constitution

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISSUE: 20171116- Re: Compulsory voting versus SSM survey, etc & the constitution

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

HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Mr. HIGGINS.-You had it in the Draft Bill.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

p5 16-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p7 16-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

REVEALED: 23 police operations, including a 1.6-tonne cocaine bust, were transferred or

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 28-1-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Thu, 31 Oct 2002

p9 16-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi