20240407-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors-Part 2

Page 1
1
2
3 Banyule City Council & Mayor Cr Melican & Ors (Australia, Victoria date) 7-4-2024
4 [email protected]
5
6 Cc: Cr Tom Melican Mayor [email protected]
7 Alison Champion [email protected]
8 Cr Fiona Mitsinikos [email protected]
9 Cr Elizabeth Nealy [email protected]
10 Cr Mark Di Pasquate [email protected]
11 Cr Alida McKern [email protected]
12 Cr Peter Dimarelos [email protected]
13 Cr Rick Garotti [email protected]
14 Cr Peter Casteldo [email protected]
15 Jan Richardson [email protected]
16 Janet Redgrave Team Leader Development Planning [email protected]
17 Mr RomanWojtkowski [email protected]
18
19 Re: 20240407-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Banyule City Council Mayor Cr Tom Melican and Ors-
20 Part 2
21
22 NOT RESTRICTED FOR PUBLICATION
23 COMPLAINT-Part 2
24 Sir & Ors,
25 the UNDATED PURPORTED NTC 3730 to my wife shows her motor vehicle being
26 parked in front of our property. This means the image is at least over 6 months old. Hardly to be
27 used as “evidence” in particular also as it was part of the STALKING conduct. And any conduct
28 by Banyule City Council to pursue further images would be at a further charge of $20 million
29 each, and that is just for each aerial image.
30 You better consider that if a Court were to be involved and find that Banyule City council was
31 made aware of the charges for its unlawful aerial and other images and enforces the charges then
32 who will be likely liable for the cost? If councillors amongst themselves may be held legally
33 liable as an insurance company may unlikely provide any cover for deliberate criminal conduct
34 Banyule City Council knew or ought to have been aware it should not get involved in let alone
35 persist with it, then perhaps every councillor may just face to have their properties confiscates to
36 put toward the compensation cost. After all, you may have elected to blatantly disregard my
37 writings but lets face it that it doesn’t alter any legal consequences from failing to act in a lawful
38 manner.
39 The image doesn’t show the date it was taken either, and for all I know could have been taken a
40 decade ago.
41 Also, how on earth would Banyule City Council know what did or didn’t change without
42 committing other crimes? There simply is no view from the footpath to the entire property and as
43 such, if Banyule City Council seeks to rely upon the criminal conduct by Banyule City Council
44 staff then I view a court would rather throw the book at Banyule City Council and those in
45 charge for allowing this criminal conduct to go on and on.
7-4-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 What I have set out below might be a good lesson to those who are fabricating like the purported
2 future Governor-General that the British did a “bloody invasion”.
3 It seems to me we are going to have some braindead nitwith as Governor-General who going
4 by her comments obviously doesn’t have a clue what the constitution is about.
5
6 And below I have INSERTED my comments regarding question and answers to Artificial
7 Intelligence (AI) that where allegedly Aboriginals have the rights below the ground to the centre
8 of earth and above the ground into the sky then well my wife and I are likewise entitled for the
9 same rights, as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) clearly provided
10 for equality of all natives and those who naturalised.
11 Obviously the question is why did Banyule City Council take aerial images in 2018 and 2019
12 when there were no front gates fitted, where they are now? After all, then there was freely access
13 into the front garden and so taking aerial photos underlines this was in my view not about any
14 legitimate issue Banyule City Council was pursuing but rather STALKING!
15
16 Obviously, the question is why on earth is Banyule City Council pestering with nonsense of
17 purported notices us when it has a law firm on the case being “becklegal”. Should Banyule City
18 Council not have been dealing through its lawyers? Is it that “becklegal” doesn’t desire to
19 continue in the matter because of the criminal conduct by Banyule City Council?
20
21 There were about 65 questions and answers with Artificial Intelligence of which with Part 1 and
22 2 I have included about 25 of them. While I at the time downloaded them in pdf format due to
23 that they cannot as such be included in a Word document I therefore had to go back to the links
24 to copy and paste them again, albeit this may result AI is slightly changing its response.
25 Anyhow, I did include an extensive INSERT as to Aboriginal issues as I am sick and tired of this
26 ongoing nonsense to claim that the British invaded “New Holland”:.
27
28 ALGA (Australian Local Government Association) should mind its own business and not push
29 councils to get involved in political issues it in my view lack any proper understanding about the
30 FACTS.
31
32 What Banyule City Council now accomplished is to provide an image that shows my wife’s
33 motor vehicle being lawfully parked right along the nature strip. Meaning that if Banyule City
34 Council were to pursue using the image as alleged “evidence” it would be evidence of malicious
35 vandalising my wife’s motor vehicle!
36
37 So far Banyule City Council is eagerly presenting evidence of its own criminal conduct against
38 itself!
39
40 In my view a competent legal adviser would have made clear to only provide
41 details/information I requested and not to persist in STALKING, harassment, causing
42 damages to property and/or property, etc.
43
44 With having had various meetings for about 4 decades with Aboriginal elders I gained respect
45 for them and well aware there are hotheads who do not reflect the general views of Aboriginal
46 elders. We must avoid this being some battle between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals as it is a
47 minority of trouble makers, as is in any society and instead of Banyule City Council giving this
48 garbage about respect, etc, it would do better to actually show the inclusiveness that it is going
49 on about while essentially pursuing elderly abuse upon my wife and myself.
50 Also stop harming children and others with those dangerous jabs and show real caring for all!
51
Page 3
1 And as you were using an aerial image that is at least 6 months old then a court may ask why on
2 earth use this when already 3 prior purported notices were provided allegedly for the same issue?
3 This then can be perceived to be maliciously pursuing law fare and how many different kind of
4 arguments and claim will perhaps eventuate about the same that the court may have no
5 alternative but to issue a restraining order against Banyule City Council! Also, I requested
6 Banyule City Council to provide me with information how many photos it made of my property,
7 the identity of each person concerned, etc. And well now the image which include this time my
8 wife’s motor vehicle indicates that Banyule City Council made more than one aerial photo at
9 least in 2023. As such, the image showing the motor vehicle I view is part of the criminal
10 conduct of STALKING and part of LAWFARE! Obviously, Banyule City Council having
11 engaged the law firm “becklegal” in my view was legally required to provide me with all
12 relevant details, which now proved again it never did. This means, Banyule City Council cannot
13 use this alleged “evidence” as it is part of criminal conduct. As for “deemed to the detrimental to
14 the amenity of the neighbourhood” and “This as per Fire Rescue Victoria’s risk reduction
15 recommendations” You appear to ignore, as I highlighted previously that Banyule City Council
16 has nature strips that are not kept up by Banyule City Council and as such can be deemed a fire
17 hazard and then you got the gal to refer to what Fire Rescue Victoria might recommend? Also,
18 who determines what is appropriately for the “deemed to the detrimental to the amenity of the
19 neighbourhood” when you haven’t got a shred of LAWFULL evidence to even argue this issue!
20 It rather would be in violation of Banyule City Council “detrimental to the amenity of the
21 neighbourhood for its staff to vandalise a lawfully parked motor vehicle, to trespass numerous
22 times on various properties, to cause direct/indirect harm upon an elderly (91) sick woman who
23 suffers from a heart condition, to ignore lawful notices, etc. If this is deemed by Banyule City
24 Council to be its kind of “inclusiveness” then well, leave us out of your criminal conduct as we
25 desire to have no part in it. People walking along the footpath along our property can only see
26 tall trees and gates with shade cloths and therefore anything Banyule City Council may claim by
27 unlawful that is criminal conduct has no legal value. You do not seem to get it that you are, for
28 me that is, building a considerable large legal case against Banyule City Council and if you fails
29 to provide the information I asked for previously then this will further underline matters against
30 Banyule City Council. Try to understand that if you pursue any kind of litigation make sure that
31 your own conduct is beyond reproach and doesn’t include criminal conduct. Perhaps getting
32 legal advice of a competent lawyer may be worthwhile for Banyule City Council to consider
33 before pursuing any further unlawful conduct against my wife and myself. The image that shows
34 my wife’s red station wagon parked lawfully along the nature strip purports to have line
35 markings, in various colours, but I noticed that it doesn’t show the true fence line at all. As this
36 image shows a search marking it means that Banyule City Council specifically searched for our
37 property and this underlines it is part of STALKING. Obviously, I now require also to know the
38 identity of any person who was involved in taking this aerial photo, the changes made, etc.
39
40 I now provide some more QUESTIONS and ANSWERS with my INSERTS. At times Artificial
41 Intelligence did admit to me that it may make errors, etc. Do understand that as I made my
42 complaint regarding this nonsense about Aboriginals but Banyule City Council nevertheless
43 persist in continuing the same I obviously consider it relevant to provide further details. After all,
44 if hypothetically I was to cross examine any Banyule City Council employee as to the meaning
45 of the statement and how does Banyule City Council know if it is not falsely promoting
46 Aboriginals where it hasn’t got a clue if they were or were not involved in cannibalism, murders,
47 etc, then this would be very relevant. As the word Aboriginal doesn’t separate the good once
48 from the bad once I view it is darn absurd for Banyule City Council to make such a blanket
49 comment as it does, to which I objected.
50 Perhaps it may have learned from any errors having been made aware of it. Time will tell.
51
Page 4
1 Over the decades I cross examined council staff and their lawyers and exposed their lies,
2 deception, etc. You may not desire to read my writings and it is your choice to do or not to do so
3 but when you commence to litigate you better know it all.
4 Some decades ago a trial judge made clear he was not going to read my writings and handed
5 down his judgment. The Full Court made clear that the judge didn’t have to read it but he had
6 nevertheless to consider the content and that he failed to do. Meaning the judge could have asked
7 a clerk to read it all and then give him a set out about the content, but he cannot ignore it.
8 Likewise with Banyule City Council if it doesn’t want to read my writings then well that is its
9 decision but in the end if there is litigation then it cannot excuse itself not having read it all.
10 I once filed more than a 1,000 pages written submissions in support of an appeal, where a senior
11 trail judge in my view had failed to follow proper legal procedures. The Full Court made known
12 they had read it all and in the end upheld my appeal.
13 There was a case (I was not involved) where a judge didn’t want to deal with a lot of banking
14 details (I understand it was a huge amount of details) however on appeal the High Court of
15 Australia held that as long as the banking details were relevant the court must consider it all.
16
17 As I made clear Banyule City council is not a “sovereign” entity and therefore had no taxation
18 powers and as the States since 11 November 1910 no longer had the “concurrent” legislative
19 powers as to “land taxation” and by this the States neither could provide “delegated” taxation
20 powers referred to as “council rates” to “councils” then all and any purported “council rates” are
21 unconstitutional. This means the states and also councils are constitutionally obligated to refund
22 all and any unconstitutional land taxation. As for the Fire Rescue Victoria charges they in my
23 view are lawful provided they are not included as “council rates” but are charges separately as a
24 Fire Rescue Victoria charge.
25 The same with garbage collection, councils as a “corporation” can charge for the cost of
26 collecting garbage, not charging when not collecting garbage, as this would be as a “corporation”
27 performing a function, however as became clear in recent years councils were being charged for
28 “recycling” and charging property owners for “recycling” when in fact the “recycling” collected
29 items were dumped in the general waste. As such, councils failed to perform a proper reliable
30 function and was deceiving property owners. My lawyer step-daughter who used to work for a
31 city council and was well aware that the council had its recycling items put in general waste, and
32 I personally observed this to be done also in a shire council.
33
34 Banyule City Council may be aware of the ever rising postal charges but this is also because of
35 the gross mismanagement of how Australian Post operates.
36 The Framers of the Constitution stated the following:
37
38 Let’s see what the Framers of the Constitution stated about the telephone, postal and other
39 services:
40
41 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
42 Australasian Convention)
43 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
44 It is just as important that the Federal Government shall have the care and management of
45 the vehicles which carry human beings and their goods as that it should have the care
46 and [start page 769] management of the vehicles or ways which carry letters and
47 telegrams.
48 END QUOTE
49
50 (Writers note: Notice they even refer to “management of the vehicles” not just photo
51 opportunities for a Minister!)
52
Page 5
1 And:
4 QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
5 If you give over the telegraph and postal business you thereby hand to the custody of the
6 Federal Government all the local appointments-the appointing of the postmasters,
7 clerks, and other officers, who do not do national, but the purest local business; and
8 you at once raise up a large army of civil servants, the influence of which we want to
9 dissociate from our national life
10 END QUOTE
11
12 (Writers note: Notice they refer to appointments of officers etc and “large army of civil servants”
13 clearly this relates to Commonwealth Management, not some private company)
14
15 Well, reality is that these days the Minister likely hasn’t got a clue about what is going on with
16 Australian Post. I will not quote the extensive details but safe to say the Framers of the
17 Constitution made it very clear in the Commonwealth all postal services had to be in the hands of
18 Australian Post. Meaning, no private postal services whatsoever. Yet, you find all kinds of
19 private postal services, including on pushbikes, motor bikes, etc, which are not Australian Post
20 couriers, and so in violation of the concept embedded in the constitution. Meaning also that
21 Australia Post is failing to control all and any postal services. Little wonder it then has financial
22 problems. But why should customers suffer for its mismanagement? The Framers of the
23 Constitution also pointed out the failure with the telecommunication services being in private
24 hands. Well even so the Framers of the Constitution held that also telecommunication had to be
25 in the hands of the commonwealth, reality is that when politicians see to make a buck they are
26 not hesitating to bray the legal principles embedded in the constitution such as selling of Telstra,
27 etc.
28
29 I provide an example as to how the Framers of the Constitution debated matters and the reader
30 then can decide if this is now really how Australia Post is operating.
31
33 Australasian Convention),
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. DEAKIN: Within or without State boundaries. How can it be said that South
36 Australia is more competent to administer the postal affairs of its Northern Territory than
37 they would be administered from a central capital? Or how can it be said that the European
38 mails for the extreme west country of New South Wales could not be better dealt with by
39 the use of railways and means of transport through South Australia? Looking at the postal
40 and telegraphic business of the continent of Australia from a purely business aspect,
41 from the practical side of affairs, it appears to me that we are more likely to have
42 satisfactory and complete communication if it be regarded as one whole and worked
43 from the most convenient centres, without regard to State limitations. I say in answer
44 to Mr. Holder that his illustration in regard to Western Australia proves nothing if
45 we may rely upon American experience. If there has been one great federal success it
46 has been the American post office, and if there is one regret in their politics it is that
47 the American telegraphic service is not also in the hands of the Government. The
48 telegraphic service is in private hands, and the regret is widespread. I can say, from a
49 short experience of some of the least settled and most distant territories of the West of the
50 United States, that the postal communication there is much more complete than I have
51 been accustomed to find in outlying districts of these colonies under their present State
52 management. The National Government at Washington, 3,000 miles away, separated by a
Page 6
1 whole continent, has proved itself more liberal in its treatment of the people of the Far
2 West than have the Governments of Australia proved themselves in regard to our back
3 block settlements. In America the post office has been a great administrative, financial, and
4 popular success; and any man who would propose to-day to hand that service over to other
5 than to State administration would find that his proposition was short-lived. We may have
6 greater difficulties to surmount than they have, but there is no reason why the
7 Commonwealth of Australia should not also achieve a conspicuous success in this
8 direction. The arguments used by my hon. friend Mr. Barton with regard to the difficulties
9 arising from a divided control of the telegraph wires appear to be conclusive. It would be
10 almost impossible to make arrangements as perfect and as economical for either postal or
11 telegraphic services [start page 771] within Australia if you retain State boundaries, and it
12 will certainly be more difficult to make arrangements for the extra-Australian services if
13 you are called upon to consider State claims and demands, instead of only considering the
14 real practical wants of the localities immediately concerned. It appears to me a desirable
15 thing as a matter of practical business to transfer both of the services to which I have
16 alluded to the Federal Government. We shall not place too great a burden on the federal
17 authority, and the whole population will be better served than they now are or than
18 remote districts can be by State authority. Placing the means of communication in the
19 hands of the Federal Government will probably permit of that universal reduction of
20 postage and cable rates which is one of the first demands of the commercial interest
21 throughout Australia. The experience of our own colony is that the present cable
22 rates are almost prohibitive. but by a satisfactory combination of the cable and postal
23 services, with unity of administration, we shall be able to secure an immediate
24 reduction in those charges, as well as in postal rates, and give the people of Australia
25 better services than those they now possess.
26 Sir PHILIP FYSH: Every postal conference that has been held for years past has
27 tendered a report suggesting that the postal and telegraphic services should be
28 federated. Year by year conferences are necessary in order to keep ourselves in touch with
29 what is going on and to keep pace with development. The clause of the 1891 Bill,
30 transferring the control of post and telegraph offices, was largely for the reason that the
31 losses amounting to £200,000 per annum, incurred by some States were for the benefit of
32 the whole, and therefore should be of federal concern. That state of accounts has since
33 altered, and South Australia, in 1891 the chief loser, and Tasmania, also an important loser,
34 have both since secured profit in these departments, but much services as posts and
35 telegraphs have by means of the postal conferences of postmasters annually, and by their
36 reports, sought to establish uniformity, and tended strongly to support this federal purpose.
37 The cost of cable subsidies has already been divided intercolonially, and the
38 completion of federal services will tend to support the "United Australia" purpose of
39 the people. Nothing has a greater tendency to perfect your union than one postage
40 stamp for Australasia. Uniform postal rate is also desirable; whereas in Tasmania, in a
41 given radius from the General Post Office, the rate is one penny, in South Australia and
42 Victoria twopence is uniform, whether across the street or to the end of their territorial
43 limit. Mr. Deakin's reference to extra-colonial or over-sea services will remind
44 representatives of the fact that the federal authority will, if only oversea services are of
45 federal concern, as Mr. Holder suggests, pay the contractors, and that the revenue will be
46 collected by the local or State authorities. The details of departmental works, such as the
47 pay of postmasters and opening new offices in outlying districts, will by federal authority
48 be settled upon the recommendations of the Local or State Secretary of the department in
49 the Federation. To be compelled at the present moment to supply ourselves with Adelaide
50 stamps, or if you are travelling in Tasmania with Tasmanian stamps, if; always
51 inconvenient to that section of the public which is of a migratory character. We have also
Page 7
1 to consider that as far as our revenues are concerned they come in unequal
2 proportions from the various contributors. In Tasmania we give in the city and
3 suburbs the advantage of a penny service; but here, and I think in Victoria also, they
4 have the same rate in the city and suburbs as throughout their territory, and I think
5 if the federal spirit is to be generated by a Constitution of this kind, and if we wish to
6 continue the belief that we are one people, we will do much in, this direction by
7 providing a uni- [start page 772] form postal and telegraphic service. Under these
8 circumstances our various conferences have invariably tended in this direction, and hence
9 during the last few years we have pooled all our cable subsidies. It was only natural that we
10 should so pool them, as we in Tasmania were bearing more than our share, and we
11 recognise that South Australia was giving to the people of Australia a large amount of
12 work for which she was inadequately recompensed. We have reversed the position, and we
13 are no longer losing by the postal service as we were in 1891. South Australia and
14 Tasmania have altered their positions, but that is no reason that the remainder, now that our
15 total loss has been reduced to about £80,000, should not pool the service which brings in
16 contact every home throughout Australia. Then you have the money order system also,
17 under which commission is charged in each colony, but if it were pooled, we would be able
18 to distribute the money of a majority of our people at a lower rate than we do at the present
19 time, which is within the scope of some future Treasurer or postmaster to propose. This
20 advantage can be better secured to the people generally by Federation than it otherwise can
21 be, and therefore I hope that we will respect the opinion of 1891.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 Again:
25 by providing a uni- [start page 772] form postal and telegraphic service.
26 And
27
28 The cost of cable subsidies has already been divided intercolonially, and the
29 completion of federal services will tend to support the "United Australia" purpose of
30 the people. Nothing has a greater tendency to perfect your union than one postage
31 stamp for Australasia. Uniform postal rate is also desirable
32
33 When the Framers of the Constitution discussed the charges it held that there should be a
34 uniform postal rate throughout Australia. Well, forget that because in violation of this legal
35 principle Australia Post is charging different rates. Forget about overnight delivery as even with
36 receiving a weekly edition of a newspaper I am a subscriber to, I find that somehow it can take
37 weeks before I receive my copy and then it has been repacked as if someone first read it and
38 then Australia Post then repacked it to send it finally to me.
39
40 The Framers of the Constitution desired to have 2 levels of government within the
41 Commonwealth of Australia besides the British addition, and that is “central government”
42 being the “federal government” and then “local government” being “state government” and
43 each have their legislative powers albeit the commonwealth also has “incidental” legislative
44 powers where to be able to provide the services it desired within its level of government it could
45 by this overrule state legislation even so ordinary it was a state legislative power. I already
46 referred to the CPI application to pensions and welfare payments as that clearly gave the
47 Commonwealth “incidental” powers to overrule the States that the states cannot increase charges
48 above the CPI for pensioners and welfare recipients. It is important to understand that taxpayers
49 when paying income tax they are all along paying for their pensions, about 7%, and if the
50 Commonwealth had not so to say stolen the monies from this pension funds then pensioners

Page 8
1 could have a lot more income. As such, pensions are not merely a benefit but a right for which
2 the taxpayer financially contributed with income taxation.
3
4 The failed attempts to get “councils” to be recognised as a “local government” when the states
5 already themselves are “local government” then this may underline how ignorant most
6 politicians are as to what is constitutionally appropriate.
7
8 And this also applies to “councils” where they have, albeit unconstitutionally, placed themselves
9 above the rule of law.
10
11 https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-rebukes-doj-arguments-against-release-jan-6-
12 defendant?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2461
13 Judge Rebukes DOJ Arguments Against Release Of Jan. 6 Defendant
14
15 In the USA there was this 6 January 2021 riots upon the capitol and as now emerges there were
16 federal law enforcement officials leading the riots and encourage it all, yet not a single one of
17 them were charged while others languished for already more than 3 years in prisons without
18 many not even having been charged. Now the DOJ (Department of Justice) claims they are not
19 obligated to investigate which police and federal officers were leading the charge. As such, they
20 have placed themselves above the rule of law.
21
22 Likewise, in Victoria the County Fire Authority legislation purportedly cannot be used against
23 government officials, etc. Well I have news for them:
24 .
25 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
27 I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step,
28 not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the
29 different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous
30 principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials shall be liable for any
31 arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any private person would be.
32 END QUOTE
33 .
34 Meaning, that any councillor and council employees as well as Ministers and others operating
35 purportedly for the state government can be charged and any legislation that violates this legal
36 principle cannot be enforced against ordinary citizens either.
37
38 Being already a great grandfather many times over I view it is very important that I ensure that
39 my descendants and others can finally enjoy the constitutional rights embedded in the
40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
41
42 As “councils” are not a “sovereignty” in itself and neither have the structure of “separation of
43 powers” then councils have to accept their powers and responsibilities are no more but that of a
44 “corporation” as the Framers of the Constitution referred to!
45
46 Artificial Intelligence might be so to say in its infancy stage and it responses are whatever it
47 happen to come across as any given time and may be considerably different even if using the
48 precise same question by the same person and this has I view been proven also where it refers to
49 the USAS system as if it applies to the Commonwealth of Australia and then again present
50 another occasion the Commonwealth of Australian set out. Being face with this, in particularly
51 where there are the braindead nitwits godless wonders who are claiming that the British did a
52 “bloody invasion” and this nonsense has been circulating for long to long then my INSERTS will
Page 9
1 explain the reality of matters. Having such political bias person to become the next Governor-
2 General will likely much more upset the apple cart.
3
4 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
5 Convention)
6 QUOTE
7 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
12 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
13 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
14 Constitution,
15 END QUOTE
16
17 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
20 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
21 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
22 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
23 the work of Australians.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
27 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
28 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
30 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
31 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
32 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
33 and secure to him.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
39
40 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
41 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
42 Parliament will be a sentry.
43 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
44 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
45 END QUOTE
46
47 Every councillor and council employee must act as a “sentry” and not despite of it merely to
48 harness unlawfully greater powers they are not entitled upon.
49
50 Let it not be overlooked that where I was able to represent myself over the years and on
51 constitutional grounds was able to defeat the Commonwealth and the 9 Attorney-Generals
52 without them even challenging either appeal may underline that they discovered to their horror
53 that I was a force to be reckoned with. Most Australian may not have the extensive knowledge I
54 have about certain constitutional issues and they are so to say becoming victim on the legal
55 meat-grinder and suffer badly regardless how much in the right they were. Often lawyers
56 referring to Authorities in appropriately by making false/misleading statements, etc, to succeed
Page 10
1 for the client they represent rather than honour their profession and acting as an OFFICER OF
2 THE COURT.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 11
2
3
4
5
6 My 41 year old son now has been diagnosed with a turbo cancer and given 5 months to 5
7 years to live.
8
9 Here we have Banyule City Council to pursue my wife and I about some utter and sheer
10 nonsense rather than to make sure that it doesn’t inject children and others with poisonous
11 vaccines. While I make clear that Banyule City Council had absolutely, at least to my
12 knowledge, anything to do with my grandchildren ending up with (as they live in different
13 councils) AUTISM and my 41 year old son with a turbo cancer, nevertheless it should make sure
14 that if concentrate on that its health centres, etc, are not causing similar to others.
15
16
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5 We should keep in mind that Invermectin and HQC were specifically against parasites and well
6 we had the world being told not to use them, etc, as after all killing the parasite with cheap
7 medication isn’t going to make the pharmaceutical companies rich and so neither the scientist,
8 medical doctors, the politicians w (kickbacks), etc.
9 As I understand it Astra Zeneca from onset engaged two scientist specialist in malaria (parasites)
10 which may underline that they may have suspected parasites were involved. But who wants to
11 deny the pharmaceutical companies their profits? Certainly not the medical profession, the
12 scientist, politicians and their collaborators as their care and concern, except of some of them
13 standing out not to pursue that way, when they can make money even if it means killing millions
14 and victimise more millions of people also. And that is why they all have to be held legally
15 accountable!
16
17 https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/04/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-2-how-are-viruses-trans
18 The Infectious Myth Busted Part 2: How are “Viruses” Transmitted? They don’t know.
19
20 https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/03/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-1-the-rosenau-spanish-
21 flu-experiments-1918/
22 The Infectious Myth Busted Part 1: The Rosenau Spanish Flu Experiments (1918)
23
24 https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-contagion-myth-failure-to-demonstrate-
25 transmission-of-viral-diseases-a-complete-study-guide/

Page 13
1 The Contagion Myth: Failure to Demonstrate Transmission of “Viral” Diseases. A

2 Complete Study Guide
3
4 https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/viruses-do-not-exist-in-nature/
5 Viruses Do Not Exist In Nature
6
7 https://viroliegy.com/2023/11/10/inventing-the-nature-of-viruses/
8 Inventing the Nature of “Viruses”
9
10 https://www.globalresearch.ca/lockdowns/5853276
11 Four Years Ago. Remember to The Lockdowns. Everything About Covid Was False
12 Mar 28, 2024
13
14 https://www.globalresearch.ca/biggest-lie-in-world-history-the-data-base-is-flawed-there-
15 never-was-a-pandemic-the-covid-mandates-including-the-vaccine-are-invalid/5772008
16 March 11, 2020, Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data
17 Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid
18 The PCR "Covid-19 Confirmed Cases" are Meaningless. The Multibillion Dollar Antigen and
19 Home Test Project is Fake
20
21 https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-lawmaker-stuns-parliament-call-members-covid-cabal-
22 face-death-penalty/5852521
23 UK Lawmaker Stuns Parliament with Call for Members of the ‘COVID Cabal’ to
24 Face Death Penalty
25
26 https://www.globalresearch.ca/driving-under-influence-mrna-collapsing-crashing-your-car-
27 while-covid-19-vaccinated/5852662
28 Driving Under the Influence of mRNA: Collapsing and Crashing Your Car While
29 COVID-19 Vaccinated
30
31 Below is a quotation of litigation to hold those in the USA legally accountable for their
32 involvement in the “covid scam” and I pursue this also in the Commonwealth of Australia!
33
34 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/is-justice-coming-victims-covid-wrongful-
35 deaths/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-
36 pundit&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=2024-03-31
37 Is Justice Coming For Victims of COVID Wrongful Deaths?
38 QUOTE
39 review and action. Similar filings soon will be made with the Louisiana and South Carolina
40 attorneys general and perhaps several other state attorneys general. Further information
41 about the Texas brief is here and information about the Florida brief is here.
42 In the briefs, the alleged crimes are according to each state’s criminal code. The legal
43 briefs/filings request each attorney general to thoroughly investigate the evidence of
44 alleged crimes and if found probable, convene a grand jury, present the evidence, issue
45 criminal indictments, and prosecute the accused to the full extent of the law.
46 The Texas legal brief, for example, filed at the request of 46 next-of-kin Texas families,
47 lists the following accused persons as subjects of a criminal investigation:
48 END QUOTE
49
50 https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/screw-your-freedom-covid-19-crimes?utm_source=post-
51 email-title&publication_id=1103773&post_id=141418631&utm_campaign=email-post-
52 title&isFreemail=true&r=1a0316&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Page 14
1 Screw Your Freedom. COVID-19 Crimes Punishable By Death

2 QUOTE
3 In December of 2020, the U.S. military and agency experts warned that the adoption of
4 the CCPs vision to have unconstrained power with no regard for human rights would
5 globally eliminate the existence of liberal governance, freedoms, and human life as we
6 know it.
7 END QUOTE
8 And
9 QUOTE
10 Do You Believe in Following Authority for the Sake of Authoritarianism?
11 The COVID-19 mandates were not based on any logic, science, or laws. The ‘public
12 health emergency' required Americans to abandon our inalienable God-given rights
13 and adopt communist and authoritarian government policies, similar to China.
14 Government polices included the unlawful use of intimidation and violence against
15 civilians by state and federal governments and law enforcement.
16 Record-level harm was inflicted upon American’s mental and physical health, our
17 families, our communities, our economy, and our ideology. America was founded on
18 the ideology that every human being has been endowed with unalienable Rights from
19 God, not from the government.
20 COVID-19 was test run to show that those in power have supreme control over you
21 (and those that you love) no matter the absurdity, or harmful consequences of the
22 government’s orders, you will obey…and the majority of humanity did.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-7-the-common-
26 cold-vacation/
27 The Infectious Myth Busted Part 7: The Common Cold “Vacation”
28
29 https://viroliegy.com/2023/10/10/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-5-is-polio-
30 contagious/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=9557&relatedposts_position=0
31 The Infectious Myth Busted Part 5: Is Polio Contagious?October 10, 2023In "Infectious
32 Myth Busted"
33
34 https://viroliegy.com/2022/06/21/science-pseudoscience-and-the-germ-theory-of-disease-
35 dr-jordan-grant/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=9557&relatedposts_position=1
36 Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease – Dr. Jordan GrantJune 21,
37 2022In "Presentations"
38
39 https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/05/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-3-hiv-transmission-rare-or-
40 non-existent/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=9557&relatedposts_position=2
41 The Infectious Myth Busted Part 3: HIV Transmission Rare or Non-Existent?October 5,
42 2021In "HIV/AIDS"
43 Published March 15, 2024By Mike Stone
44 Categorized as Infectious Myth Busted
45
46 https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/why-c-19-vaccines-dont-prevent-infection?utm_source=cross-
47 post&publication_id=1119676&post_id=142567781&utm_campaign=548354&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX
48 2lkIjo3NzI2NjI2NiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQyNTY3NzgxLCJpYXQiOjE3MTAzODA0MTUsImV4cCI6MTcxMjk3
49 MjQxNSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTExMTk2NzYiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.zlmRnPWVPis6jW4a99hJQs
50 Lpj4RQUEW1MYhyzG_pxfM&r=1a0316&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
51 Why C-19 Vaccines Don't Prevent Infection
52 Paper by Morens, Taubenberger, and Fauci offers clear explanation
53 QUOTE
Page 15
1 He explained to me precisely why COVID-19 shots—designed to induce the

2 production of antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in the blood—
3 cannot prevent infection by or transmission of the virus. The trouble, he explained, is
4 that SARS-CoV-2 replicates rapidly in the nasal mucosa and transmits to other
5 people days before it make it down into the gas exchange region of the lungs and
6 encounters blood antibodies.
7 This, he further explained, had long been understood about respiratory viruses such
8 as those that cause the common cold and influenza, and this same quality was quickly
9 ascertained about SARS-CoV-2.
10 Thus, from the outset, it was clear that the COVID-19 vaccines would NOT prevent
11 infection by or transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This reality completely nullified any
12 rationale for vaccine mandates.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
15 QUOTE
16 In other words, in November 2022, Dr. Fauci and his colleagues published a paper in
17 which they demonstrated their clear understanding of what Professor Clancy told me
18 at dinner three months earlier—namely, the COVID-19 vaccines cannot “effectively
19 control” SARS-CoV-2. The initial, much publicized claim that they would prevent
20 infection and transmission was a bald-faced lie.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 The elaborate “covid scam” is but one example how politicians, lawyers, judges and their
24 collaborators were willing to mass murder Australians. The so called “childhood” vaccinations
25 themselves are an indication that councils are going along rather than bothering to question what
26 those childhood vaccines are about. Are they really “safe and effective” as is the mantra by
27 politicians and medical doctors who might be financially compromised by claiming this as they
28 did with the “covid scam”?
29
30 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/defender-in-depth-mark-blaxill-autism-epidemic-
31 overvaccination/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_i
32 d=20240403
33 ‘Autism Epidemic Is Real and Overvaccination Is Its Cause’: A Conversation With Mark Blaxill
34 Mark Blaxill, chief financial officer of the Holland Center, a private autism treatment center and
35 father of an autistic adult daughter, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss what
36 he called the “coming tsunami” of autism caregiving, as the autistic children of the 1990s
37 onward reach adulthood.
38 QUOTE
39 But, he said — quoting autism researcher and author Bernard Rimland — “The
40 autism epidemic is real and overvaccination is its cause.”
41 There was a “sharp inflection point in 1990” after which autism rates exploded, Blaxill
42 said. The most obvious change that affected children “across the country at a very
43 clear point in time was the change in the childhood immunization practices.”
44 END QUOTE
45
46 https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/03/30/coincidence/
47 2019 CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE
48
49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuJpalsj9sQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fw
50 ww.ericpetersautos.com%2F&feature=emb_imp_woyt
51 Why is it that allergies were much less common among children who were born
52 back in the ’60s and early ’70s? Why is it that afflictions such as Autism and
Page 16
1 Aspergers Syndrome were all-but-unknown among kids who were not serially
2 injected with dozens of drugs from birth through adolescence?
3 QUOTE
4
5 END QUOTE
6
7 https://vigilantnews.com/post/worrying-news-for-measles-vaccine-takers/
8 Unbelievable Revelation for Measles Vaccine Takers
9 QUOTE
10 This challenges the very foundation of what was once universally accepted about vaccines.
11
12 This article originally appeared on The Epoch Times and was republished with permission.
13 Guest post by Yuhong Dong
14 For many years, we’ve been told that the measles vaccine is responsible for stopping the
15 spread of measles. Many even blame the occurrence of measles cases on low vaccination
16 rates.
17 The message we often hear is simple: Thanks to vaccines, we are protected from disease.
18 Yet our bodies are complex and do not always respond well to vaccines. Injecting a foreign
19 substance can lead to dire consequences.

Page 17
1 The primary focus of this article is to examine the principles and safety of measles
2 vaccines.
3 Measles Recovery Possible Without Antibodies
4 The pandemic taught everyone the science of vaccines: They stimulate the body to
5 generate substances called “antibodies,” which can fight viruses.
6 Scientists focus primarily on antibodies to measure immunity, yet the immune system is far
7 more complex.
8 END QUOTE
9
10 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/doj-chd-rolf-hazlehurst-fraud-vaccine-injury-case-
11 children-autism/
12 ‘Shocking Cover-up’: DOJ Lawyers Committed Fraud in Vaccine Injury Case, CHD Attorney
13 Alleges in Motion Filed Today
14 Rolf Hazlehurst, a Children’s Health Defense staff attorney and father of a son diagnosed with
15 autism, today filed a motion in federal court alleging lawyers representing the U.S. Department
16 of Health and Human Services fraudulently concealed and misrepresented evidence that
17 vaccines can cause autism.
18 QUOTE
19 Hazlehurst said he is “asking the court to give this motion the serious attention it
20 deserves.” He added, “At a minimum, the court should allow discovery and hold a hearing
21 on this motion.”
22 Overturning a ruling due to fraud on the court is an extraordinary remedy reserved
23 for extraordinary cases but according to Hazlehurst, “This motion we filed shows
24 that this indeed is an extraordinary case.”
25 The DOJ has until April 30 to respond to the motion.
26 CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “Vaccines most definitely do cause
27 autism, and the government has been lying about this reality for decades.”
28 Holland added:
29 “With others, I published a law review article in 2011 showing that the government
30 absolutely knew that vaccines cause autism — and yet they have covered it up and
31 lied about it since the inception of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
32 “How many hundreds of thousands of children and families would have been spared
33 the heartaches and crushing financial burdens of autism had the government come
34 clean?”
35 END QUOTE
36 And
37 QUOTE
38 “The Vaccine Act of 1986 is one of the fundamental causes of the autism epidemic,”
39 Hazlehurst said.
40 END QUOTE
41
42 Based upon my own private research I have urged that no child or other person should be
43 vaccinated unless there has been a proper medical examination by a medical doctor, not some
44 politician, to assess if the vaccination is beneficially to that child/person and signs for that.
45 Meaning that council health centres cannot willy nilly inject someone without proper medical
46 assessment, etc.
47
48 Perhaps Banyule City Council so to say likes to have another bite of the cherry and pursue me
49 about my “covid scam” claims or the “childhood” vaccine claims? I understand from records
50 that since 1990 there was a huge blowout of injecting children with the “childhood” vaccines and
51 since then there was a dramatically increase in AUTISM. In fact 3 of my grandchildren I
52 understand have AUTISM.
Page 18
1 Where is the reliable evidence that vaccines are “safe and effective” and do not cause AUTISM
2 where now the litigation is before the USA courts that in 1990 lawyers had deceived the courts
3 and concealed what an expert witness had in fact states regarding vaccinations and “AUTISM”.
4 This then places in question that as officials (including councillors and council staff) turned out
5 to have been ignorant to the harm of vaccinating children and by this may have caused untold
6 harm upon children what will be their responsibility? After all, it is made clear that a soldier
7 must not follow any order which he reasonably can view to be unlawful. As such, let councillors
8 prove that when a child was injected as a council health centre the staff provided all and any
9 relevant information for a parent/carer to be able to give “”informed consent” regarding any or
10 all vaccinations?
11 While my children were all vaccinated I never, when attending, was ever informed about any
12 dangers for any of my children, and this then supports my view that there is a massive failure for
13 proper information to be given to parents/carers and by this there never was any “informed
14 consent”. And then the question is why should rate payers be held accountable for any financial
15 cost when it were the councillors and other council staff who miserably failed in their duties and
16 obligations?
17 And yet we have who I consider grossly incompetent braindead people to be given powers to
18 conduct some form of government when they cannot even manage themselves to conduct matters
19 within the rule of law. After all, “informed consent” is a legal basis that those injecting children
20 and others must obtain and cannot do so if they fail to provide the relevant needed information
21 and details.
22
23 There can be no doubt that Banyule City Council engaged over the years in STALKING,
24 vandalism, damage to private property, direct and indirect personal harm, TERRORISM
25 trespassing, etc. and obviously this also places the question who is paying for all this? Surely
26 council employees are not working without pay! Are property owner’s monies used for Banyule
27 City Council to pursue a reign of terror? Who’s monies is used to engage lawyers in it all?
28
29 We now have that farmers and others may be subjected to special regulations/laws such as if
30 they can at all put a fence post in the ground and how far because the Victorian Government
31 somehow made a secret deal in violation to the legal principles embedded in Ss51(xxvi) of the
32 constitution, as it simply has no such legislative powers neither has any other state.
33 Farmers, growers, etc, are they to provide us with food on the table and hardly can be expected
34 to be expert in certain constitutional matters, whereas I have enjoyed my constitutional research
35 over the decades. I did not desire to have a battle with any council but when a council decides to
36 take me on then well I rely upon my constitutional rights and any braindead councillor would be
37 wiser to leave me and my wife alone. However, a council that takes me on if not completing it
38 then it may be deemed an admission of lawfare, and if it doesn’t it can be deemed an admission
39 that it never really had valid and legitimate grounds. Then of course they by this implied
40 admission can face the music of litigation against themselves.
41
42 Over the years I was always aware that likely some braindead council might want to take me on
43 and so I collected thousands of images that just in case one was stupid enough to take me on I
44 could respond.
45
46 I am aware there are judges who couldn’t give a darn about following proper legal procedures
47 but that will not excuse them nor validate any judgment.
48
49 ”The test for determining apparent bias is this: if a fair-minded and informed observer,
50 having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge
51 was biased, the judge must recuse himself (see Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at [102]).
Page 19
1 According to the “Guide to Judicial Conduct” in England and Wales (2018), Judge Swift
2 should have recused himself.
3
4 The following legal principle is also applicable in the Commonwealth of Australia:
5
6 Scheuer v Thodes, 416 US 232 94S Ct 1683, 1687 (1974) states:
7 “when a state officer (which includes Judges) acts under a state law in a manner violative
8 of the US Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
9 Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is
10 subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
11 The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
12 authority of the United States”.
13
14 The following shows how absurd the federal government has been about a “treaty” to which
15 there is no such constitutional powers to engage in with its own citizens.
16
crisscross767 just commented on FOI reply reveals the Voice will enable a Treaty
which will take a large portion of GDP and rent from all white Australians and
abolish flag.
17 By Senator Jacinta Price This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide. But now it's out and
18 every Australian needs to hear it before voting on the divisive Voice. You know how the
19 PM keeps saying the Voice is a "modest change" to the Constitution? Well, the real agenda
20 behind his Voice referendum has finally... Continue reading Untitled
21
22 We have that governments at times seeks to hide behind private commercial papers, often
23 published to serve the corporation and not uncommon a scam.
24
25 THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE | Dawn Kelly
26 https://dawnkelly.com.au/the-clearfield-doctrine
27 Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942) What the Clearfield
28 Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government,
29 then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private
30 corporation.
31 Exhibit 8a Clearfield Doctrine – The People's Lawyer
32 Click to access Exhibit-8a-Clearfield-doctrine.pdf
33
34 We had this extensively in regard of the “covid scam” about 100%!
35
36 37-0114 (Asked the using same link, and yet answer is not exactly the same.)
37 QUOTE Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW
38 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+Barry+
39 Collier+MP+Parliamentarian+Secretary+Assisting+the+Treasurer+NSW+on+2+March+2011+cl
40 aimed+%28to+me%29+that+the+States+had+legislative+powers+regarding+land+taxation+retu
41 rned+to+them%3F+Do+you+accept+this+is+possible+when+the+constitution+doesn%E2%80%
42 99t+provide+for+this+mechanism+to+return+exclusive+Commonwealth+power+back+to+the+
43 States%3F
44 Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer
45 NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed (to me) that the States had legislative powers regarding
46 land taxation returned to them? Do you accept this is possible when the constitution
47 doesn’t provide for this mechanism to return exclusive Commonwealth power back to the
48 States?
49
Page 20
1 INSERT by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

2 This response was provided upon the same question that was done on 25 March 2024 albeit as
3 this response refer to the “20240327” date this underlines that when the same question is asked
4 days later there can be a different response. Meaning, that the questions I at the time in pdf but
5 then seek to do in word document and so go back to the same link, I may have a different
6 answer. Just to point out this is not a DOUBLE in error but rather to show that an identical
7 question by the same person my end up differently. How different cannot be predicted.
8 END INSERT by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
9
10 According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:
11 Answer:
12 No, it is not possible for the States to have legislative powers regarding land taxation
13 returned to them if the Constitution does not provide for such a mechanism. The
14 Australian Constitution clearly outlines the division of powers between the Commonwealth
15 and the States, and taxation powers are predominantly held by the Commonwealth
16 government.
17 The power to levy taxes, including land taxation, is a fundamental aspect of governance
18 that falls under the exclusive domain of the Commonwealth government as per Section
19 51(ii) of the Australian Constitution. This section grants the Commonwealth Parliament
20 the authority to make laws with respect to taxation, which includes income tax but also
21 extends to other forms of taxation.
22 While there are instances where certain powers can be delegated or shared between the
23 Commonwealth and the States through specific agreements or arrangements, any return of
24 exclusive Commonwealth power back to the States would require a constitutional
25 amendment. Without such an amendment, it is legally untenable for the States to
26 unilaterally claim legislative powers over areas that are constitutionally assigned to the
27 Commonwealth.
28 In summary, unless there has been a constitutional amendment or a specific legal provision
29 allowing for such a transfer of power regarding land taxation from the Commonwealth
30 back to the States, it is not feasible for Barry Collier MP or any State entity to assert
31 legislative authority in this matter.
32 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used:
33 1. Australian Constitution: The primary legal document that establishes the
34 framework for Australia’s federal system of government and delineates the
35 distribution of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments.
36 2. Taxation Laws: Relevant federal legislation and regulations governing taxation in
37 Australia, including provisions related to land taxation and other forms of levies.
38 3. Legal Commentaries on Constitutional Law: Scholarly works and expert analyses on
39 constitutional law in Australia that provide insights into issues related to federalism,
40 division of powers, and constitutional amendments.
41 Web Search Results
42 5 results
43
44 Mr Barry Joseph COLLIER, OAM, BComm, DipEd, DipLaw, GAICD ( ...
45 https//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au › members › Pages › member-details.aspx
46 Mr Barry Joseph COLLIER, OAM, BComm, DipEd, DipLaw, GAICD ( ...
47 Member of the NSW Legislative Assembly, 19 Oct 2013, 06 Mar 2015 ; Parliamentary Secretary
48 Assisting the Attorney General, Assisting the Treasurer and Assisting ...
49
50 20240327-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors

Page 21
1 https//www.scribd.com › document › 717556566 › 20240327-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Buloke-

2 Shire-Council-Ors
3 20240327-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Buloke Shire Council & Ors
4 36 Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 claimed 37 38 As Barry Collier MP
5 Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW on 2 March 2011 39 ...
6
7 Barry Collier (politician)
8 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Barry_Collier_(politician)
9 Barry Collier (politician)
10 He was a Labor Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly from 1999 to 2011
11 and from 2013 to 2015, representing the electorate of Miranda.
12
13 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
14 https//www.parliament.nsw.gov.au › la › department › Documents › department-of-the-
15 legislative-assembly-annual-report-for-2009-2010 › LA%20Annual%20Report%20200910.pdf
16 Department of the Legislative Assembly - Parliament of NSW
17 parliamentary recess between december 2010 and the march 2011 election should provide
18 staffing resources to complete some of these projects.
19
20 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
21 https//www.aph.gov.au › parliamentary_business › committees ›
22 house_of_representatives_committees
23 Committee Secretary 5-6-2011 Joint ...
24 This did not have the effect of preventing the. States from imposing land tax, but rather returned
25 taxation powers back to them. Accordingly ...
26
27
28
29 END QUOTE Are you aware that Barry Collier MP Parliamentarian Secretary Assisting the Treasurer NSW
30
31
32 39-0118
33 QUOTE Are you aware that records indicate the Dutch in 1658 claimed "New Holland" for the Dutch
34 Government?
35 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options%5bdetail_level%5d=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that
36 +records+indicate+the+Dutch+in+1658+claimed+%22New+Holland%22+for+the+Dutch+Gove
37 rnment%3F
38

Page 22
1 iAsk Question · Are you aware that records indicate the Dutch in 1658 claimed "New Holland"
2 for the Dutch Government?
3 Are you aware that records indicate the Dutch in 1658 claimed "New Holland" for the
4 Dutch Government?
5
7 Yes, records indicate that the Dutch claimed “New Holland” in 1658 for the Dutch Government.
8 Dutch Claim of “New Holland” in 1658
9 In 1658, the Dutch claimed “New Holland” for the Dutch Government. This claim was part of
10 the Dutch colonial expansion efforts during that period. The Dutch were actively involved in
11 establishing trading posts and territories around the world, including regions like New Holland.
12
13 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
14 1. National Library of Australia
15 2. State Library of New South Wales
16 3. National Archives of Australia
17 These sources provide historical records and archives related to early colonial activities,
18 including the Dutch claim of “New Holland” in 1658. They offer valuable insights into the
19 events and documentation surrounding this particular historical event.
21 5 results
22
23 Dutch colonial empire - Wikipedia
24 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Dutch_colonial_empire
25 Dutch colonial empire - Wikipedia
26 Johan Maurits was appointed governor of "New Holland" and landed at Recife in January 1637.
27 ... The Dutch claimed ... Dutch government. The Antilles were combined ...
28
29 Did the Dutch ever try to retake their colonies outside of Indonesia (e.g. ...
30 https//www.quora.com › Did-the-Dutch-ever-try-to-retake-their-colonies-outside-of-Indonesia-e-
31 g-New-Holland-the-New-Netherlands-etc-If-no-why-not
32 Did the Dutch ever try to retake their colonies outside of Indonesia (e.g. ...
33 After the Portuguese had driven out the Dutch from the New Holland colony in Brazil in 1654,
34 there was a Dutch naval blockade of Portugal in ...
35
36 31 The Dutch Seaborne Empire: Qua Patet Orbis - Oxford Academic
37 https//academic.oup.com › book › 39071 › chapter › 338397229
38 31 The Dutch Seaborne Empire: Qua Patet Orbis - Oxford Academic
39 It is estimated that the Company lost on average 3 million guilders a year on the Brazilian colony
40 of New Holland. By 1636 the WIC was 18 million guilders in ...
41
42 THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN NEW YORK, 1654-1664 ... - jstor
43 https//www.jstor.org › stable › 43057824
44 THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN NEW YORK, 1654-1664 ... - jstor
45 And none of them was missing, praised be God. That New Holland in this account meant New
46 Amsterdam is indicated by the fact that New Amsterdam is so described.
47
48 VOC – United Dutch East India Company
49 http//museum.wa.gov.au › explore › dirk-hartog › voc-united-dutch-east-india-company
50 VOC – United Dutch East India Company

Page 23
1 The coast of New Holland, as it became known after Tasman's 1644 voyage, offered the Dutch
2 very little in the way of trade or resources. There were no ...
4
5 END QUOTE Are you aware that records indicate the Dutch in 1658 claimed "New Holland" for the Dutch
6 Government?
7
8
9 40-0121
10 QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the Dutch?
11 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Do+you+accept+that+Cap+C
12 ook+did+not+invade+"New+Holland"+as+it+was+already+claimed+by+the+Dutch%3F
13 Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by
14 the Dutch?
15
17 Answer:
18 No, Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was already claimed by the Dutch.
19 The story of Lieutenant James Cook and British Sovereignty over Australia has been somewhat
20 misconstrued. While Cook did chart the east coast of New Holland (Australia) in 1770 during his
21 voyage, his primary mission was not to claim the land for Britain. Cook’s initial objective was to
22 reach Tahiti to study the Transit of Venus and then search for the mythical Great Southern Land,
23 Terra Australis.
24 When Cook was heading back after mapping New Zealand (Aotearoa), he intended to return via
25 Cape Horn in South America to potentially discover Terra Australis. However, due to the
26 condition of his ship, he decided to sail north along the east coast of New Holland towards
27 Batavia (Java) for repairs and supplies. Cook’s intention was not to invade or claim New
28 Holland but rather to navigate a route back home that would benefit his mission.
29 Cook’s journal entries indicate that he consulted with his officers on the best route to take for
30 their return journey, ultimately deciding to sail west until they reached the East Coast of New
31 Holland and then follow its direction northward. The decision to explore parts of New Holland
32 was based on practical considerations and the need for provisions rather than a deliberate
33 invasion or claim of sovereignty.
34 Therefore, it can be concluded that Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was
35 already claimed by the Dutch, and his exploration of the east coast of Australia was part of a
36 larger navigational journey rather than a conquest.
37 Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
38 1. National Library of Australia
Page 24
1 2. Australian National Maritime Museum

2 3. State Library of New South Wales
3 These sources provided historical records, journals, and archives related to Captain James
4 Cook’s voyages and explorations in Australia, offering valuable insights into the events
5 surrounding his navigation along the coast of New Holland.
7 5 results
8
9 New Holland (Australia)
10 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › New_Holland_(Australia)
11 New Holland (Australia)
12 New Holland was never settled by the Dutch people, whose colonial forces and buoyant
13 population had a settled preference for the Dutch Cape Colony, Dutch ...
14
15 Why do the Dutch think that they discovered Australia before ...
16 https//www.quora.com › Why-do-the-Dutch-think-that-they-discovered-Australia-before-the-
17 British
18 Why do the Dutch think that they discovered Australia before ...
19 The Dutch called it “New Holland”, rather strangely because it looked nothing remotely like
20 Holland. They were quite unimpressed with the areas ...
21
22 'Over Cooked': Is Captain Cook the source of British sovereignty in ...
23 http//nationalunitygovernment.org › content › over-cooked-captain-cook-source-british-
24 sovereignty-australia
25 'Over Cooked': Is Captain Cook the source of British sovereignty in ...
26 Another oddity in the story is that Cook's Journal speaks of it not being widely known whether a
27 strait exists between New Holland and New Guinea, but back in ...
28
29 The Search for 'Terra Australis'
30 https//www.nationalarchives.gov.uk › education › resources › the-search-for-terra-australis
31 The Search for 'Terra Australis'
32 Why do you think it's important for Cook to be sure that he is the first European to visit before
33 he claims the lands? Can you find out where 'New Holland' is?
34
35 The Blind Spot on Our Indigenous History
36 https//www.linkedin.com › pulse › blind-spot-our-indigenous-history-leon-gettler
37 The Blind Spot on Our Indigenous History
38 The guide does not say that Cook “invaded” the country, merely that he was the first Englishman
39 to map the coast of New Holland. It points ...
40
41

Page 25
1
2 END QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the
3 Dutch?
4
5
6 50-0159
7 QUOTE Are you aware that the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear that Queensland
8 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+the+Fr
9 amers+of+the+Constitution+%28Australia%29+made+clear+that+Queensland+had+to+sort+out
10 +the+land+rights+issues+with+Torres+Strait+Islanders+before+federation%3F%0A
11 Are you aware that the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear that
12 Queensland had to sort out the land rights issues with Torres Strait Islanders before
13 federation?
14
16
17 INSET by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
18 The Hansard shows that the land right issue had to be resolved BEFORE federation and as such
19 Ss51(xxvi) was not at all for this! As Artificial Intelligence also quotes: “other than the
20 aboriginal race in any State” this underlines that therefore Ss51(xxvi) not applicable to
21 Aboriginals (this included Torres Strait Islanders) could not be used for land rights issues. As I
22 understand it from the debaters the Framers of the Constitution didn’t want to have any land
23 rights issues AFTER federation!
25
26 Answer:
27 Yes, the Framers of the Constitution in Australia did indeed make it clear that Queensland had to
28 address the land rights issues with Torres Strait Islanders before the federation. This requirement
29 was outlined in Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution, which deals with the power of
30 the federal government over “The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State,
31 for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.” This provision was included to ensure
32 that Queensland resolved any outstanding land rights issues with Torres Strait Islanders before
33 joining the federation.
34 Background on Land Rights Issues with Torres Strait Islanders:
35 Before Federation, there were significant land rights issues affecting Torres Strait Islanders in
36 Queensland. These issues stemmed from historical injustices, dispossession of land, and lack of
37 recognition of their traditional ownership rights. The Framers of the Constitution recognized the
38 importance of addressing these issues before forming a unified nation.
39 Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution:
40 Section 51(xxvi) grants the federal government power to legislate for “the people of any race”
41 other than Aboriginal Australians in any state. This provision was specifically included to
42 address the unique circumstances and needs of Torres Strait Islanders and other Indigenous
43 groups in Australia.
44 Queensland’s Obligation Before Federation:

Page 26
1 Queensland was mandated to resolve the land rights issues with Torres Strait Islanders as a
2 precondition for joining the federation. This requirement underscored the significance placed on
3 justice, reconciliation, and recognition of Indigenous rights in the formation of modern Australia.
4 In conclusion, it is evident that the Framers of the Australian Constitution emphasized the need
5 for Queensland to address land rights issues with Torres Strait Islanders before federating to
6 ensure fairness, equality, and respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights.
7
9 This response somehow conflicts with what AI previously stated on my questions as then
10 portraying that Aboriginals were denied equality when in fact the contrary was pursued. Indeed
11 this was why Aboriginals were kept out of Section 51(xxvi) discrimination. However, it refers to
12 Aboriginals of a State and this means that foreign Aboriginals entering the Commonwealth must
13 have been included already in Section 51(xxvi) regarding land rights by Torres Strait Islanders, a
14 clear conflict I n the statement.. What I seem to get from AI answers is that it doesn’t consider
15 the Framers of the Constitution intentions on its own but confuses this to include what later may
16 have been wrongly decided by the High Court of Australia and numerous other authors may have
17 claimed in their writings. By this AI to some extent in my view is unreliable as its answers are
18 not based upon the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the
19 constitution as was at time of federation but corrupted by later statements as if they somehow
20 amended the constitution by whatever some author may have written.
22
24 1. National Archives of Australia: The National Archives provide access to historical
25 documents related to Australia’s constitutional history and discussions around Indigenous
26 rights.
27 2. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS):
28 AIATSIS is a reputable organization that offers valuable insights into Indigenous
29 histories, cultures, and legal issues.
30 3. Australian Government - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: The
31 department oversees matters related to Indigenous affairs and constitutional matters in
32 Australia, providing official information on relevant topics.
34 5 results
35
36 About Constitutional Recognition
37 https//humanrights.gov.au › our-work › aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice ›
38 about-constitutional-recognition
39 About Constitutional Recognition
40 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were excluded from the discussions about the
41 creation of a new nation to be situated on their Ancestral lands and ...
42 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties, constitutional and legal ...
43 https//www.aph.gov.au › About_Parliament › Parliamentary_Departments ›
44 Parliamentary_Library › pubs › rp › rp2122 › Chronologies › IndigenousChronology
45 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties, constitutional and legal ...
46 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties, constitutional and legal recognition and
47 representation in Australia: a chronology.
48
49 Does Australia's constitution recognise Aboriginal rights? If not ...
50 https//www.quora.com › Does-Australias-constitution-recognise-Aboriginal-rights-If-not-why-
51 not
Page 27
1 Does Australia's constitution recognise Aboriginal rights? If not ...

2 No, there is nothing of the sort. In fact, Aborigines were originally under the sole authority of the
3 states, whereas the Commonwealth could ...
4
5 Chapter 3 – Parliament of Australia
6 https//www.aph.gov.au › Parliamentary_Business › Committees › Senate ›
7 Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs › Nationhood › Report › section
8 Chapter 3 – Parliament of Australia
9 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had no concept of land ownership prior to the
10 arrival of British colonisers in 1788 (the doctrine of terra nullius); ...
11
12 The Debate Over the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous ...
13 https//onlinelibrary.wiley.com › doi › full › 10.1111 › ajph.12889
14 The Debate Over the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous ...
15 The second error is to imply that Aboriginal people had not previously been under
16 Commonwealth jurisdiction. It was under the Commonwealth ...
17
18
19 END QUOTE Are you aware that the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) made clear that Queensland
20
21
22 51-0201
23 QUOTE Are you aware that the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) did not refer to
24 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Are+you+aware+that+the+Fr
25 amers+of+the+Constitution+%28Australia%29+did+not+refer+to+%22indigenous+Aboriginals
26 %22%2C+%22traditional+custodians%22+or+%22traditional+owners%22+but+these+terms+w
27 ere+made+up+after+federation%3F%0A
28 Are you aware that the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) did not refer to
29 "indigenous Aboriginals", "traditional custodians" or "traditional owners" but these
30 terms were made up after federation?
31
33 The answer by Artificial Intelligence (shown below) I view is considerably out of place. The
34 Framers of the Constitution specifically excluded Aboriginals (including Torres Strait Islanders)
35 from their debates, other than when it was an issue, as they held that Aboriginals were a State
36 issue and specifically excluded them from Ss51(xxvi) to avoid any discrimination by the
37 Commonwealth in regard of Aboriginals. Their intentions as such were honourable but now they
38 are criticised for this and false and misleading claims made against them. To the Framers of the
Page 28
1 Constitution they held that Aboriginals were a Colonial (later State) internal affair and it was up
2 to the to be newly created states to decide who they granted State franchise, albeit where a
3 person had been granted State franchise and was at the age of ADULT (as declared by the
4 Commonwealth) then the person by Section 41 of the constitution AUTOMATICALLY had
5 Commonwealth franchise. This was not just in regard of Aboriginals but also regarding women
6 in general. This, as South Australia already had given women the right to vote, and so by Section
7 41 they were eligible to vote in Federal elections. Indeed, in the first Federal election in 1901
8 Aboriginals and women in general who had State franchise were entitle to vote in the Federal
9 election in 1901 for so far they were willing to vote, and did so.
10
13 QUOTE
14 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
15 right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
16 protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be
17 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the
18 subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
19 END QUOTE
20
22 QUOTE
23 Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
24 Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
25 Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
26 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with
27 the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
28 I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship
29 to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little
30 too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the
31 Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I
32 do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of
33 citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
34 decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
35 Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
36 Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an
37 inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its
38 borders.
39 Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
40 END QUOTE
41
44 QUOTE
45 Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the
46 Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
47 Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony,
48 and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the
49 rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
50 Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the
51 aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
52 Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.

Page 29
1 Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought
2 not to be deducted.
3 Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
4 Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in
5 reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals
6 vote.
7 Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
8 Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this
9 matter is, that when we come to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita,
10 if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will have so much the less to pay, whilst
11 if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
12 Clause, as read, agreed to.
13 END QUOTE
14
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent?
18 Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian
19 community is any reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a
20 reign of Christian persecution-any fear that there will be any remnant of the old ideas
21 which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole of the advancement in
22 English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has shown a
23 less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious
24 observances, or to maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have
25 abolished state religion in all these colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and
26 we propose now to establish a Government and a Parliament which will be at least as
27 enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various states; therefore,
28 what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in
29 relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the least-probability or
30 possibility, taking into consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is
31 constantly going on of any of these various communities utterly and entirely retracing its
32 steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these communities in which we live,
33 have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised under a
34 different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement;
35 if, as this progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce
36 between Church and State becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a
37 recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former days with respect to these colonies,
38 then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia, which
39 we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as
40 much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in
41 respect of the Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any
42 one of the states. Now, we have shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our
43 states by striking out clause 109. That might be a provision that might be held to be too
44 express in its terms, because there may be practices in various religions which are
45 believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other
46 races, which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any
47 Christian, but to any civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is
48 armed with the power of legislation in regard to immigration and emigration, and
49 with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the making of special laws for
50 any race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we have all
51 these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth,
52 under its regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which are
Page 30
1 abhorrent to the ideas of humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it
2 is a reasonable thing that these outrages on humanity and justice (if they ever occur)
3 should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a dangerous thing, perhaps,
4 to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page 1772] of their hands
5 the power of preventing any such practices.
6 Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing
7 Bill?
8 Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to
9 prevent anything that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite.
10 Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 Again:
14 and also with regard to the making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal
15 races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we have all these provisions under which it
16 would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth
17
18 This shows that it refers to Aboriginals in a State and that Aboriginals were excluded from race
19 laws as they were referred to as “natives” and protected in that regard from losing their
20 “franchise” whereas any race law against an “alien” race would strip them of their franchise also!
21
23 QUOTE
24 Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
25 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable
26 to the general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize
27 legislation with respect to the affairs of the aboriginal race in any state.
28 END QUOTE
29 .
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject
33 of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in
34 America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses
35 his rights.
36 Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Basically, zombies and braindead people would accuse the Framers of the constitution about evil
40 against Aboriginals because as the latter quotation makes clear that when any race legislation is
41 enacted against any “race” then all people of that race AUTOMATICALLY loses their franchise.
42 This means that since the Commonwealth commenced to legislate against Aboriginals (within
43 the provisions of Section 51(xxvi) against Aboriginals then all of Aboriginal descent lost their
44 “citizenship” rights.
45 Meaning, that since legislation was enacted within Ss51(xxvi) regarding Aboriginals then all
46 Aboriginals lost their “citizenship” and were equal as to “aliens” and lost their “franchise” and
47 constitutionally cannot vote in any State/Federal election and neither can be a Member of
48 Parliament in any State/Commonwealth Parliament. And yet we had reportedly at least 3 former
49 judges of the High Court of Australia promoting the 129 Voice referendum who to me seemed
50 not to have a clue what was constitutionally applicable. Surely it would have been better to get
51 rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) altogether and then have a referendum to return legislative powers
52 about Aboriginals to the States?
53
Page 31

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public
4 life. I am an Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I am
5 associated assume a position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
9 QUOTE
10 William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official
11 and labour movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
12 Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a
13 bootmaker.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
17 QUOTE
18 Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional
19 Convention (1897–98) that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901. His
20 support of Federation was over the objections of many in the labour movement, and served
21 to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill had been "wholly shaped in a
22 conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
23 END QUOTE
24 And
25 QUOTE
26 Trenwith was married three times. His first marriage was to Susannah Page on 2
27 November 1868 and they had four children, a daughter and three sons. Susannah died in
28 1896. His second marriage was to Elizabeth Bright on 7 April 1896 and they would have
29 three children, a daughter and two sons. Elizabeth died in 1923. His third marriage was to
30 Helen Florence Sinclair on 1 October 1924. [1]
31 Trenwith died in Melbourne on 26 July 1925, aged 79, survived by his third wife and his
32 seven children.[1][8]
33 END QUOTE
34
35 This underlines that being a “native” was not at all considered a derogative word but rather that
36 natives being Aboriginal or not were all deemed equal unless a race legislation was enacted
37 ,against a certain race.
38
40 QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
41 The question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more
42 repulsive than the question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the
43 existence in our midst of a certain number of idle men-men sharpening their knives
44 and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of fleshing them on the people of
45 their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australia-federated
46 Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no
47 enemies within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the
48 soil; we have no powerful Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for
49 the territory the right to which belonged to the Maoris themselves. We have no enemies
50 within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of any assault on the mother
51 country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a standing army proves
52 a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for unlawful
53 purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these
Page 32
1 resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to
2 make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his
3 taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without.
4 Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the enemies of England, and they, so long
5 as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer barrier, an outer bulwark in
6 the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we have no enemies
7 within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a standing army upon us. As was
8 pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, yesterday, in his interesting speech, we
9 have no necessity to keep a large standing army at a large cost to the people of the country,
10 [start page 185] when we have no enemies with whom they will have to fight. Our own
11 police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
12 END QUOTE
13
14 Again:
15
16 All we want to do is to make every man who is either a native of the soil, or one of
17 ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst us, prepare to resist
18 possible invasion from without.
19
20 This statement also made clear that all born in the Commonwealth of Australia are “natives”, this
21 includes any child born to migrants, etc. As with the USA it is not relevant if a child is from
22 undocumented/unlawful entered persons as the critical issue is that a child is born in the
23 commonwealth of Australia regardless of the nationality of the child. Yet, I understand that
24 children born in the Commonwealth of Australia are deported with their parents while somehow
25 the High Court of Australia allows a convicted murderer to stay in Australia because he has a
26 child born in the Commonwealth of Australia. So much monies are spend on Aboriginals,
27 reportedly about $39 Billion so the Aboriginal population is a mere about 3% and of which
28 reportedly about 70% lives their lives as like other Australians. Meaning, that effectively $39
29 Billon is spend on about 1% of Aboriginals and most of this is I view ripped off by organisations
30 and not really ending up at all to provide services for those in need. As such, it is now the
31 Commonwealth that grossly mismanages Aboriginal affairs throwing hard earned tax payers
32 monies into a bottomless pit. It will not do anything as to an “age” gap of years of living as
33 much depends upon how a person lives his/her life.
34 Also, as Subsection 51(xxvi) relates to all “races” then why is the Commonwealth not providing
35 for other races the same services as for Aboriginals? Is it because constitutionally it is not
36 permissible to do so and doing it for the Aboriginals well the hell with the constitution!
37
38 And this I discovered From Kirby J who in my view was evading the issue when it came to
39 alleged “cooperative federation” as if States could do whatever and so the Commonwealth rather
40 than that there is a strict adherence to the Constitution.
41
42 Thu, 31 Oct 2002
43 QUOTE
44 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
45 Thank you for your letter.
46 There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case
47 involving women or a male judge in a rape case.
48 Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the
49 Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power
50 sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required.
51 Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a
52 cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Page 33
1 Sincerely, Michael Kirby

2 END QUOTE
3
5 QUOTE
6 III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:
7 shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House
8 of Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the
9 expiration or remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.
10 Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point:
11 A number of German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign
12 power, especially those who have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be
13 necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the words "or who has not since been naturalised
14 as provided in clause 30"?
15 Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.
16 Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.
17 Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.
18 Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that
19 treaties may be in force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in
20 operation on the very lines I am citing that will give to a British subject travelling in
21 Japan practically the same rights and privileges as he would enjoy as a citizen of his own
22 country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in another country, who
23 becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high powers, he
24 should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
25 Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them
26 may come back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.
27 Clause as read agreed to.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 The statement “until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or
31 remission of the sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.” Clearly means that no
32 matter how horrible a person’s conviction might have been about, once the person has completed
33 all part of the sentence then the person is entitled to serve in the Parliament if so elected.
34
35 The statement “Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances. ” means that when a person
36 naturalises then his/her former nationality is terminated.
37
39 QUOTE
40 Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-
41 and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers
42 for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall
43 get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our
44 schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could
45 complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for
46 the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution
47 may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may
48 unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the
49 people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal
50 has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a
51 few minutes in discussing it. Not that I believe that it will be carried, but I think it is an
52 echo of a widespread misapprehension which prevails outside as to the duties and
Page 34
1 functions of the Supreme Court. It very often seems hard to a layman that that which has
2 been enacted by Parliament should be declared to be illegal by a Supreme Court when the
3 statute is called into question during litigation between two citizens. It is hard, but like
4 everything else in politics, it is a choice of evils. The question is: Whether it would not be
5 of much greater disadvantage to the whole community to bring in the Supreme Court as an
6 interpreter of the Constitution before any precise case was taken before it, than it is to
7 leave the individual to suffer the hardship of finding that the Act upon which he relied was
8 really invalid? I will not use my own language in explaining the position, but, to have it put
9 upon record, I should like to quote a passage which occurs on pages 154 and 155 of
10 Dicey's Law of the Constitution. After pointing out that the American Supreme Court
11 exists to interpret the Constitution, and to see that effect is given to its provisions, the
12 writer goes on to say that-
13 The power, moreover, of the courts, which maintains the Articles of the
14 Constitution as the law of the land, and thereby keeps each authority within its proper
15 sphere, is exerted with an ease and a regularity which has astonished and perplexed
16 continental critics. The explanation is that the Judges of the United States control the
17 action of the Constitution, but they perform merely judicial functions, since they
18 never decide anything but the cases before them. It is natural to say that the Supreme
19 Court pronounces Acts of Congress invalid, but in fact this is not so. The court never
20 directly pronounces any opinion whatever upon an Act of Congress.
21 [start page 1687]
22 What the court does do is simply to determine A. is or is not entitled to recover judgment
23 against X.; but in determining that case the court may decide that any Act of Congress is
24 not to be taken into account, since it is an Act beyond the constitutional powers of
25 Congress.
26 If any one thinks this is a distinction without a difference he shows some ignorance of
27 politics, and does not understand how much the authority of a court is increased by
28 confining its action to purely judicial business.
29 In a book prepared by you, sir, entitled A Manual of Reference for the use of Members of
30 the National Australasian Convention, to which frequent reference has been made, the
31 matter is further dealt with. You say, at page 126, in words that I would like to adopt as
32 part of my argument:-
33 No doubt the power given is very great, but it is exercised in a manner and by a
34 body which affords the least possible chance of friction and quarrels between the
35 central and the provincial governments. A veto by the central authority has to be
36 exercised at a time when the public attention of the provincial electors is directed to
37 the matter; at a time when, perhaps, party spirit runs high, when angry passions
38 pervade both factions, and when the subject-matter is invested with an importance
39 which is not intrinsic, whereas a declaration by a court that the statute is invalid is
40 withdrawn from the sphere of politics. Each individual and each state looks upon it
41 that such declaration is given only in pursuance of the Constitution. Public attention
42 is probably directed to other matters, and the question has, in many cases, shrunk into
43 its native insignificance; and "it is to the interest of every man who wishes the
44 Federal Constitution to be observed that the judgments of the federal tribunals should
45 be respected, and they take it that the courts are the protectors of the federal compact,
46 and that the federal compact is, in the long run, the guarantee of the rights of the
47 separate state."
48 If the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) was carried into effect-though of
49 that, I think, there is not the slightest chance-it would follow that any person who was
50 aggrieved by an unconstitutional enactment would have to persuade the Attorney-General
51 of the state or of the Commonwealth, as the case might be, to in some way set the law in
Page 35
1 motion to ascertain the legality of the enactment, If the enactment was one which affected
2 a matter exciting strong party feeling, the result would be that the abstract question of its
3 validity would have to be argued before the court at a time when public feeling was
4 excited, although it would be of the utmost importance that the decision of the court should
5 be entirely free from all suspicion of political bias. Then, too, the enactment might be valid
6 in parts and invalid in other parts, or it might be impossible to interpret it in the abstract. It
7 is impossible to foresee the bearing of a statute upon all possible cases, and it is only when
8 a case comes for determination before a court that the court is able to say that in that
9 particular case the statute does or does not afford protection to the citizen who has relied
10 upon it. The honorable member's proposal would remove at once the greatest of all
11 safeguards to the impartiality and usefulness of the Federal Court, by taking away from it
12 its right to deal with matters which are brought, as lawyers term it, to a distinct issue, and
13 with precise and definite points, in regard to which the full bearing of every word of the
14 judgment could be appreciated? Instead of the court being able to determine the legality of
15 an enactment in its bearing upon any particular case, there would be considerations
16 introduced which were utterly foreign to the atmosphere of the tribunal, and that would
17 seriously impair the public confidence in a court which, with us, as in America, will, I
18 believe, prove to be the ultimate protector of the liberties of the people. Then, too, the
19 amendment is in its form so complicated that its practical working will be impossible. The
20 honorable member said truly that the Attorney-General constantly intervenes now. But he
21 intervenes at the expense of the individual. The individual presents his case, and gives a
22 guarantee for costs. Under this proposal all that would happen would be that the individual
23 who wanted to assert [start page 1688] his right would have a barrier placed between him
24 and the obtaining of justice. He would have to satisfy the Attorney-General for the time
25 being that he would be able to pay the costs of any action, and he would have to bring
26 sufficient political pressure to bear upon that officer to get him to move in the case, and
27 finally he would be left to contest the matter in his own interests and in his own name. The
28 result would be that the rights and liberties of every citizen in the community would
29 be placed at the mercy of a chance parliamentary majority.
30 Mr. GORDON.-That is the position now-the rights and liberties of every individual are at
31 the mercy of a parliamentary majority.
32 Mr. WISE.-The honorable member is now speaking of rights in respect to legislation. If
33 the Parliament of South Australia were to pass a law contravening the Merchant Shipping
34 Act
35 Mr. GORDON.-I am not speaking of Imperial legislation.
36 Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Parliament of South Australia wanted to get rid of the Plimsoll
37 Mark Act-even though there were a majority it would be invalid, but according to the
38 honorable member, when, we have here a case exactly analogous, if the Constitution limits
39 the power of the state, and enacts that certain powers shall belong exclusively to the
40 Commonwealth Parliament, and that if the state deals with them it invades the authority of
41 the Commonwealth Parliament, the individual is to have no rights unless he can persuade
42 the Government of the day to take up his case. It is in the interests of the poorer and
43 uninfluential classes of the community, it is. in the interests of the minority, that this
44 amendment should be rejected, because it places an obstacle in the way of obtaining
45 that justice which ought to be free to every individual in the community.
46 Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to add my protest against this new clause. I am
47 bound to say something, because the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) says it is only the
48 conservative and timid lawyers who would venture to oppose this proposal.
49 Mr. GORDON.-I did not say that. I said as a rule the legal profession is, according to
50 Herbert Spencer, a timid and conservative class.

Page 36
1 Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be so, and if the honorable member says he did not make that
2 statement it is all right. Anyhow, I thought he said that only conservative and timid lawyers
3 would oppose this clause. There is no doubt the intention of the honorable member is
4 excellent. He wants to diminish litigation. If he can show that this will diminish litigation
5 to any material extent, and, at the same time, will not involve us in a great many dangers to
6 our liberties, I will go with him, but he has not shown anything of the sort. As Mr. Wise
7 has shown, it will throw an unpopular minority into the power of a chance Ministry of the
8 day. We must see to-day that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals,
9 are preserved in the Constitution. I think Sir John Forrest said that I personally had not
10 got sufficient respect for the rights of individuals.
11 Sir JOHN FORREST.-No.
12 Mr. HIGGINS.-Do I understand him to refer merely to private property?
13 Sir JOHN FORREST.-Not the same respect as I have.
14 Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest
15 pedestal, and by contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were
16 carried, an unpopular individual, to obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in
17 hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the day. I was thinking of the pig-tail
18 case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time ago, where an
19 abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in
20 regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence.
21 That law was declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. I ask honorable
22 members to consider the great difficulty there would be in getting the Federal Congress or
23 Federal Executive to interfere in the case of Chinamen, so as to enforce their rights in such
24 a case. There was an exceptional law which should never have been passed. It was
25 distinctly a persecuting law. Any practical politician would see the great difficulty there
26 would be in appealing to a Federal Executive, especially if there was an election
27 approaching, to enforce the just rights of Chinamen in such a case. The same thing might
28 happen supposing a federal law were passed which was outside the Constitution.
29 Supposing that a majority of the state concerned happened to regard the man as
30 unpopular supposing a law were passed that no one bearing the name of Jones should
31 be admitted into the state of Virginia, the law might be directed against a certain
32 person named Jones, and it would be unconstitutional, and Jones could not enforce
33 his rights to go into that state. I ask, is he to be compelled to go cap in hand to the
34 Attorney-General of the state of Virginia to enforce his rights? I feel that, with the very
35 best intentions my honorable friend is making the gravest of mistakes. So far as regards the
36 main purport of the amendment, it would mean this: That you could only get a point of this
37 sort decided by having a state or Commonwealth intervening as a party. You would turn
38 judicial questions into political questions. You would proclaim-"Here is a question
39 between the state and the Commonwealth; here is a political question"; and you would
40 make the Judges partisans. It is one of the great advantages of private persons being
41 able to raise these points, and not the states or the Commonwealth, that you keep the
42 judicial bench free from the taint of political partisanship. I feel that the more you look
43 at this thing all round, the more inconsistent it is with the very first principles of justice. It
44 may be said-Even supposing the law does go beyond the Constitution in some degree,
45 surely it ought not to be left to a private person to upset it." I say it ought to be upset at
46 once and at the very earliest point. As soon as ever you find it has gone beyond the bounds
47 you ought to say-"This thing is illegal." Otherwise you will leave to the Ministry of the day
48 these powers of which you are so careful, giving them to a majority of the states and to a
49 majority of the people. You would allow the Ministry of the day to exercise a suspending
50 power as to whether it would enforce a law or not, which is most dangerous. It is one thing
51 to induce a Government or Parliament to pass an unjust law, and it is quite another thing to
Page 37
1 induce a Government for one excuse or another to hold its hand from acting. What I fear is
2 that you would often induce the Government to withhold its hand from acting, for fear it
3 would incur opprobrium or unpopularity. I sincerely hope the amendment will not be
4 carried.
5 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-Of course the objections raised are those I expected,
6 only I think they might have been put with even greater force. And there is a great deal
7 more to be said in favour of my motion than I have been able to say. I agree at once with
8 the interpretation of Mr. Wise that this measure is a simple method of amending the
9 Constitution by acquiescence. I intended it to be so, and that is not a demerit-it is a merit-of
10 the proposal. As for the argument that you might as well have no Constitution at all if you
11 allow amendment by acquiescence, that seems rather wide of the mark. People going into a
12 partnership lay down the general terms of that partnership, but they may be qualified by
13 consent. But you must have in your partnership general rules laid down. There are the
14 general lines laid down in the Constitution, which within certain limits may [start page
15 1690] be modified as agreed, so that the honorable and learned gentleman's argument in
16 that view, I think, fell to the ground. Mr. Higgins enforced the argument as to the rights of
17 the individual. Now, I have already said that I think those individual rights should be
18 subordinated to the general rights of the community, and to their interests as expressed in
19 the law for the time being. I object altogether to the objection that party faction would
20 govern. What would govern it would be the sense of the community for the time being.
21 However, as there appears to be no hope of carrying the proposal, I must content myself by
22 submitting it to the committee.
23 Mr. Gordon's proposed new clause was negatived.
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Again:
27 The same thing might happen supposing a federal law were passed which was outside
28 the Constitution. Supposing that a majority of the state concerned happened to
29 regard the man as unpopular supposing a law were passed that no one bearing the
30 name of Jones should be admitted into the state of Virginia, the law might be directed
31 against a certain person named Jones, and it would be unconstitutional, and Jones
32 could not enforce his rights to go into that state.
33
34 This underlines that one cannot have any kind of legislation directed at a “certain person”. This
35 also means that certain laws specifically enacted against a convicted criminal as to keep this
36 person in prison is unconstitutional! A person who has been sentenced and served the period of
37 sentence must be released as a free man and in fact may serve in the Parliament, as the Framers
38 of the constitution made very clear, such as someone who had been bankrupt, etc. As this person
39 has paid for the crime that was done and entitled to re-join the general community.
40
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-I beg to move-
44 That sub-section (3) be omitted.
45 This clause was very shortly debated on the last evening of our sitting in Sydney. I did not
46 then press the matter to a division, because so many delegates were absent, but I indicated
47 that I would take an opportunity of having a division in this session. The object of my
48 amendment is that public men shall not be penalized unduly by a provision which will
49 disqualify them, perhaps for all time, from holding a position in public life by reason of
50 monetary misfortune. Clause 46, which follows, I do not intend to amend. It provides that
51 the seat shall be vacated by any member who becomes bankrupt or insolvent, and then, the
52 seat being vacated, the member will have to go to his constituents for re-election. That is
Page 38
1 practically the law in New South Wales, although I believe it is not the law in Victoria. I
2 think it is a sufficient penalty for a public man that be should resign his seat and go before
3 his electors when he takes advantage of the law relating to insolvent debtors. It is going too
4 far to say that because a man by misfortune, and owing to circumstances over which
5 perhaps he has no control, is compelled to seek the protection of the court, he should resign
6 all public offices and practically retire from public life. What would have happened in New
7 South Wales if we had had such a provision in the law? We have seen, not on one
8 occasion, but on many occasions, not in regard to one individual, but in regard to many
9 individuals, men occupying positions as Premiers, whose usefulness has not been
10 questioned, who have been compelled to have recourse to the protection of the Insolvency
11 Court. These men have resigned their position in Parliament, as they were compelled to do
12 by the Constitution Act; they have gone to their constituents, and they have been elected or
13 rejected by the electors, who can judge them in the light of the knowledge they have
14 relating to their insolvency. They have not had their political careers closed. If there had
15 been such a law as this in operation, we should have had some of the wisest and best men
16 who ever guided public affairs in New South Wales shut out from public life. We should
17 have had Ministries destroyed, and men who through misfortune, which, perhaps, was
18 largely attributable to the fact of their holding positions in public life, would have had their
19 careers of usefulness closed for ever. I invite honorable members to pay attention to this
20 aspect of the case. If you penalize politicians above all other men, what will happen?
21 Suppose there is one public man and nine or ten others who become guarantee for a very
22 large sum of money in connexion with some enterprise. We know that public men are often
23 led into becoming guarantors as directors of companies, and they become guarantors on
24 account of advances made perhaps for the purpose of pushing forward some enterprise
25 which is practically for the development of some of the resources of the colony. Such a
26 provision as this would mean that because there is one man out of ten who has to do
27 something more than pay the debt, who has to stand the risk of losing his position as a
28 public man, that man is put in a position to be black-mailed. You put him in a position
29 where he alone can be pushed to an extremity, and a clause of this character would be used
30 by creditors, who might have the opportunity of looking to half-a-dozen other men who
31 have jointly become security on mortgages, bonds, or guarantees, who will press that man
32 alone, because they know that he is the only one against [start page 1933] whom such a
33 lever of destruction can be used as to deprive him of his position in public life. Honorable
34 members having been associated for many years with public life will know the bitterness
35 which sometimes attaches to political warfare. Is not this provision the means of putting a
36 powerful instrument in the hands of unscrupulous opponents? Such a thing would have
37 been done in New South Wales over and over again if such a provision as this had existed
38 in the law. The career of some of the brightest and best intellects of the public life of that
39 colony would have been closed. It will be a misfortune to the Commonwealth if you brand
40 with the stigma of permanent displacement men who, by reason of their services to the
41 country, have neglected to serve their own interests. It has been one of the highest
42 testimonies to the honesty of public men in Australia that they have been poor men. It has,
43 perhaps, been one of the greatest sacrifices that public life has ever entailed in these
44 colonies, where men of intellect, following their professions closely, or developing the
45 resources of the country, may easily make fortunes, that public men should have thrown
46 aside all these opportunities of advancing their own interests, and have devoted themselves
47 to the interests of the country, thereby very often bringing ruin upon themselves and their
48 families. That is a story that could be related over and over again with regard to the public
49 men of Australia. After having faithfully served their country for many years, most of
50 them, perhaps, have to see in their declining years poverty coming upon themselves and
51 their families. Now, here it is proposed to place an additional penalty upon our public men
Page 39
1 who, perhaps, have to seek the protection of the court through no fault of their own in nine
2 cases out of ten. Having given up his professional pursuits, and having attached
3 himself for years or for a lifetime to political affairs, a provision of this kind will place
4 it in the hands of any creditor-a political opponent or otherwise-to absolutely close
5 the door against that man's future public career by forcing him into the Insolvency
6 Court. The electors of the country have a right to make their choice, and if they choose to
7 be represented by a man who is compelled by the necessities of his life to become bankrupt
8 or insolvent, surely it is not our business to take away that choice from them. A man may
9 be guilty of a misdemeanour, he may have served a sentence of two years for a
10 misdemeanour, he may have been guilty of some disgraceful offence, yet, under this
11 Bill, that man can be elected. Yet it is proposed to stigmatize a man who may have to
12 seek the protection of the Bankruptcy Court through being a director of a mining
13 company, or through being connected with some financial institution which in boom
14 time has flourished, and has then gone down, dragging others with it. You penalize
15 such a man more than a man who may have been guilty of a crime. This Bill will
16 allow any drunkard or vagabond in the community to be elected to Parliament; but
17 you penalize beyond all these men a man who has served his country too well and
18 who has not served himself sufficiently well, neglecting his own affairs, and thus
19 allowed monetary embarrassment to fall upon him. I trust the Convention will strike
20 out this sub-section.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 In Victoria (again) we had that Former Premier Daniel Andrews purportedly removed all
24 convictions of homosexuals. In my view this was unconstitutional and the separation of powers
25 cannot have that the Government of the Day overrules the Courts former decisions. The issue is
26 not if one may or may not agree about past court decisions rather they were made at a time when
27 it was a criminal offence and so considered by the court at that time, and later changes cannot
28 alter this. It is different when a court makes a decision beyond its judicial powers or where it
29 made a judgment in violation to conceder certain legal provisions, however, to assign some new
30 kind of punishment to a convicted criminal merely because it may suit the Government of the
31 Day I view is unconstitutional.
32
33 Not long ago 2 convicted criminals (of Aboriginal descent) born in New Zealand were ordered
34 to be deported from Australia but the High Court of Australia as I understood it held that if local
35 Aboriginals accepted them then they could not be deported. Now get this, we had effectively the
36 High Court of Australia legislating from the bench and by this violating the separation of power.
37 It was to the Commonwealth Parliament to express its intentions and not for the High Court of
38 Australia to undermine the intentions as expressed in legislation that somehow the Court now
39 erodes the confidence in how the law applies.
40
41 About 60 years ago, while I was then living in Germany a friend made known that we never
42 could be in a relationship because she was black and I was not. I am sick and tired of all those
43 people claiming that there is racism against people of colour as they themselves far too often
44 show racism!
45
46 When we consider the Negritoes and other races that existed long before other Aboriginal tribes
47 came to reside in what is now known as the Commonwealth of Australia we hear all about First
48 Nations Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and yet Negritoes and other races that were long
49 before Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were part of the Commonwealth of Australia are
50 so to say brushed out of history. Why?
51
Page 40
1 What ‘First Nations’?

2
3 The Murraysians ate the Negritoes.
4 The Carpentarians ate the Murraysians.
5 Then they ate each other.
6
7 I am Dutch born, and the Dutch named New Holland (Now called Australia) in 1606 and
8 claimed it for the Dutch Government in 1656/8 well before the British arrived and claimed it in
9 1788 and long before Thomas Mayo’s ancestors appeared to have arrived in 1800’s in what was
10 then called Queensland.
11
12 Many Aboriginals may have the same genes as I have pending my ancestors operating ships and
13 may have become involved in siring children in New Holland.
14
15 In any event, the 65,000 claim by Thomas Mayo appears to me to be absurd.
16
17 https://cairnsnews.org/2023/04/17/foi-reply-reveals-the-voice-will-enable-a-treaty-which-will-
18 take-a-large-portion-of-gnp-and-rent-from-all-white-australians-and-abolish-
19 flag/?replytocom=461397#respond
20 FOI reply reveals the Voice will enable a Treaty which will take a large portion of GDP
21 and rent from all white Australians and abolish flag
22 QUOTE
23 Peter Campion
24 April 19, 2023 at 6:28 pm
25 From Keith Windschuttle’s books, the current aboriginal people are almost all
26 Carpentarians, close relatives of Sri Lanka’s Vedda people, who came here across the ice-
27 age land bridge where the Torres Strait is now ~15,000 years ago.
28 Before them where the Murraysians (~25,000 years ago).
29 Before them where the Negritoes (~40,000 years ago).
30 Surviving in arid ice-age Australia was tough.
31 The Negritoes ate the mega-fauna, which ended any chance of harnessing animal power for
32 farming and any chance of developing an agrarian society in Australia.
36 See ethnographer Carl Lumholtz’s excellent book from his experience in NQ in the 1880s
37 on his journey beginning on the Herbert River, “Among Cannibals: Four Years Travels in
38 Australia and of Camp Life with the Aborigines of Queensland”, free download from
39 archive.org here –
40 https://ia800900.us.archive.org/28/items/amongcannibalsa00lumhgoog/amongcannibalsa0
41 0lumhgoog.pdf
42 Everyone has a history of displacing others, and everyone has 60,000 years of culture.
43 Therefore everyone should be treated the same under the law.
44 No exceptions.
45 Ever.
46 “BTW, they DID invent the boomerang – that’s got to be worth some credit.”
47 I can’t find the link at the moment, but there exists convincing arguments that the
48 boomerang was technology brought here by ancient Egyptians.
49 They’ve been found in the tombs of some ancient kings and there was an ancient Egyptian
Page 41
1 navigator who went on a world discovery tour thousands of years before Cook, whose
2 name eludes me at present…
3 END QUOTE
4
5 What ‘First Nations’?
6
10
11 And then came others such as the Aboriginals, who despite claims by “Travelling Pete”
12 (Anthony Albanese) they weren’t around 65,000 odd years ago!
13
14 Consider also information at:
15
16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
17 Indigenous Australians
18
19 https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-real-agenda-behind-the-
20 voice?r=yhmq1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR2K1Rjjx2fJ97j7z-
21 8wnKjGInVt9me969ruJnLb7ElkR91mN9sPjTA1lJ8
22 THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT:
23 Exposing the Globalist's Plan to Steal Australian Farmlands and Regional Land
24 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vows, "I'm here to change the country." It is not a vow,
25 but a threat.
26 QUOTE
27 We sons and daughters of past Colonialist-expansionism (and immigration) are being
28 asked to relinquish our guard, to atone for ancestral wrongdoings, and to blithely
29 accept the “gift of a Voice” on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples. It is being handed to
30 us to hand to them: our vote; our consent. Should the referendum be successful,
31 should it be ratified and written into our Australian Constitution —it will cede all
32 perceived sovereignty of the First Nations Peoples (as many Tribal Elders have
33 already determined). Their multifarious voices will be muted and reduced to a
34 singular controlled Voice; and, consequently, a token “Aboriginal Parliament” will
35 speak on their collective behalf.
36 Such a Voice will certainly not speak for them. However, it will justify itself, and
37 further its hidden purpose by legally speaking through them. Cunningly, the
38 ventriloquist will be the shadow board of the Corporatocracy (rule by corporate
39 interests) that truly governs Australia, and the collective jaw of the “Blak Voice” will
40 move according to their plundering pursuits and their ‘Great Reset’ vision.
41 We currently do not have our own representative Voice in any parliament. Our
42 Australian Federal Parliament, our Prime Minister and all State Premiers are
43 completely captured, compromised, and entirely incapable of speaking on behalf of
44 any Australian. These political bureaucrats speak, and act, only in accord with the
45 boardroom business objectives of the Transnational Corporatocracy that owns them.
46 They are all owned and inexorably controlled.
47 Moreover, Australia is entirely owned, and the people truly have no actual
48 democratic representation. Thus, it is absurd to assume that our captured Federal
49 Parliament could facilitate the constitutional recognition of a genuinely autonomous
Page 42
1 Indigenous Voice that represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The
2 decision to invest upwards of $235 million of Australian taxpayer’s dollars in
3 promoting and staging the Voice Referendum is ultimately a shrewd business
4 decision. It is expected to pay off.
5 Australia is a Corporatocracy: ruled and owned by corporations. Perhaps Benito
6 Mussolini defined it best with his ideological glorification of Corporatism: 'Fascism
7 should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and
8 corporate power.'A Corporatocracy makes ruthless business decisions to maximise
9 profit and expansion, and to ensure an unassailable position of self-preservation and
10 dominance into perpetuity. We are nation owned by the interests of an undisclosed
11 consortium of oligarchical elites, and their various transnational megacorporations.
12 Our nation is basically a shop front, open for business, and sinisterly outfitted to
13 maximise capitalistic profit and plunder at our expense. We are both customers, and
14 commodities for the harvesting, and the culling.
15 END QUOTE
16
17 https://cairnsnews.org/2022/09/07/aborigines-possibly-the-tenth-race-to-have-inhabited-
18 australia/
19 Aborigines possibly the tenth race to have inhabited Australia
20 QUOTE
21 Date: September 7, 2022Author: Editor, cairnsnews87 Comments
22 Letter to the Editor
23 The Torres Strait Islanders are a different race of unrelated people of Melanesian descent,
24 their history goes back about 3,000 years diverging to a mix of Papuan and Lapita people
25 30,000 years ago. They are a well structured society with agriculture and productive
26 communal industry, and warriors using bows and arrows. The aborigines never had enough
27 smarts to copy their usage or society, they never rose above stone age weapons (National
28 Geographic) had gardens or agriculture.
29 Australian Aborigines were probably the tenth race of people to have lived in Australia
30 Aborigines are of Indian descent, sharing the same mtDNA, and two basal synonymous
31 mtDNA polymorphisms G8251A and A9156T with the M42 haplogroup, shared
32 exclusively between(pre-Dravidian) Indian and Australian aborigines — “These particular
33 mutations do not exist anywhere else in the world; they are shared exclusively between a
34 few isolated ancient tribes in India and Australian aboriginals” (Quote: Prof Dr Satish
35 Kumar).
36 Ancient endo cast skulls have been found, strange Flat-Head skulls, others of very different
37 ancestry from Kow Swamp, Nacurrie, Coobool Creek, Cohuna, Lake Mungo, Tasmanian
38 Aborigines were Papuan Ulotrichi referred to by Professor Alfred Cort Haddon in his
39 book, ‘The Races of Man’. We have photographs of the “little people (150 cm) of the
40 Kuranda rainforest.
41 The many different races to have occupied Australia are scientifically proven by Dr Irina
42 Pugach Dr Frederick Delfin, Dr Ellen Gunnarsdóttir, Dr Manfred Kayser, and Prof Dr
43 Satish Kumar: Supported by research from Drs Norman Tindale, Joseph Birdsell, Peter
44 Brown — and Professors Mark Stoneking, Allan Wilson, Alan Thorne, Colin Mackenzie,
45 Manning Clark, Joseph Greenberg, Alan Cooper, Chris Stringer, and Dr Merritt Ruhlen.
46 You cannot disprove their science.
47 With reference in the “Atlas of Foreign Countries”, written between 265 – 316 A.D.,
48 Chinese Sea Captains describes the mysterious great south land being inhabited by a race
49 of one-metre-tall pygmies: Frank and Alexander Jardine settled Cape York recorded
50 they witnessed the little Negritos being hunted down like kangaroos by the taller
51 aborigines. In the 1400’s and 1500’s, Dutch and Portuguese sailors sighting the

Page 43
1 Western Australian coastline noted “tall natives in warfare chasing and killing hordes
2 of “little” native peoples”.
3 There is no need for a referendum to include Aborigines in the Constitution — The are not
4 and never were the nation’s first people, probably the tenth race to have lived here.
5 Sincerely
6 Gil May
7 Forestdale 4118
8 END QUOTE
9
10 Again:
11
12 QUOTE
13 Frank and Alexander Jardine settled Cape York recorded they witnessed the little
14 Negritos being hunted down like kangaroos by the taller aborigines. In the 1400’s and
15 1500’s, Dutch and Portuguese sailors sighting the Western Australian coastline noted
16 “tall natives in warfare chasing and killing hordes of “little” native peoples”.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 Why is this part of Australia’s history ignored?
20
21 QUOTE AUSTRALIA DAY — MEANS MANY THINGS
22 AUSTRALIA DAY — MEANS MANY THINGS
23
24 Gil May <[email protected]>
25 To:[email protected]
26 Bcc:[email protected]
27 Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 1:19 pm
28 AUSTRALIA DAY — MEANS MANY THINGS
29 QUOTE
30 Current aboriginals are about the eleventh race to occupy Australia — From ancient
31 endocast skulls buried in volcanic ash millions of years ago, to who made the giant
32 footprints in stone — Gigantopithecus, Meganthropus of both: Java Man; archaic robust
33 Kow Swamp/Cooloo Creek people; gracile Mungo Man; Flathead people; the Negroid
34 Pygmies who still exist in Queensland; who drew the ancient Bradshaw art of deer and
35 ocean canoes; who painted the Wandjinas; who were the Murrayian and Capentarian
36 people; to the current migrants from India 4,230 years ago. Many different races
37 migrated/invaded, and some killed off existing people.
38 This clearly shows aboriginals stole it from others—who had stolen it further back in time
39 from others. In the rock-art area of the Kimberley Ranges is another valley where the
40 paintings are totally different to that of the Aboriginals, they are very similar to primitive
41 cave paintings in France. When asked who painted these, the tribal elder (SBS TV) replied
42 “They were painted by the people before our time began”, an admission of prior
43 occupation, these are totally different from local rock-art. The ‘Bradshaws’ nearby are
44 different art from most others. Who were the artisans?
45 In their ignorance some want to recognise the original owners in the constitution preamble,
46 Why? They were unrelated to current people and have been dead over a million years and
47 their place taken by others, numerous times — what purpose does it serves recognising
48 very ancient dead people? A classic bit of stupidity swallowed by the ignorant and that
49 suffering fluoride induced brain damage and reduced IQ.
50 END QUOTE
51 END QUOTE AUSTRALIA DAY — MEANS MANY THINGS
52
Page 44
1
2 Here we have states including the State of Victoria pursuing this nonsense about “First Nations”.
3 OK let me now quote something from “ABORIGINAL TRIBES OF AUSTRALIA Chapter
4 Four Physical Anthropology By NORMAN B. TINDALE 1974”.
5 QUOTE ABORIGINAL TRIBES OF AUSTRALIA Chapter Four Physical Anthropology
6 The uncircumcised Balardong of the York district east of Perth nearly 1,000 miles (1,500
7 km.) to the south tell of cannibalism among the circumcised people to the east and of the
8 escape of an intended victim, after he had been circumcised and before he was eaten. Such
9 stories seem to indicate that the realities of physical and other differences across major
10 lines of physical and cultural break are long remembered. Among the Njamal such stories
11 are called manginju [‘nainju].
12 END QUOTE ABORIGINAL TRIBES OF AUSTRALIA Chapter Four Physical Anthropology
13 And
15 They consider themselves to be tall but not to tall as the [‘thilparta] people. In my opinion,
16 using Birdsell’s classificatory terms, the Walmadjari have some links with the Murrayins,
17 the Kokatja are more Carpentarian, and the southern people are nearer to the blond-haired
18 type that Birdsell tentatively calls the Desert type of mixed Carpenmtariaqn origin.
19 The presence of blond hair among the children of the Desert peoples has not escaped the
20 notice of aborigines. They point out that the Indjiobandi of the Hamersley plateau in
21 Western Australia have many fair-haired children and that their skin color is light, or
22 “copper colored” as described by an aboriginal. They contrast the Indjibaqndi with the
23 Kariara and the other peoples along the northwest coast whose children’s hair is dark. In a
24 letter dated February 7, 1953, Father Worms mentioned that a Jawuru (his Jaoro) informant
25 had indicated that the Mangala people living to the east were people with “white hair,” in
26 contrast with their own locks which were darker. Father worms indicated that he had
27 himself noted that some children had dandy-colored hair among the Koktja (his Gogadja)
28 in the vicinity of Gregory Salt Sea.
30 And
32 Stories of little people and the fears of meeting them when alone, also of ways to circumvent
33 their attentions by not looking directly at them, are widely current. Amongst the
34 Tanganekald there were stories of how the little people who lived in the rough scrub country
35 and known as tharkuni [0arkuni] were exterminated by being driven onto a point of land
36 jutting out into the sea and were turned into the penguins that lived along the southern
37 shores.
39
40 Nearly all of my children were born in Australia and all my grandchildren and great-
41 grandchildren are, and they have a right to know the true history of those who original settled in
42 what is now the Commonwealth of Australia and not being swindled into some fabricated
43 historical claims.
44
45 Pauline Hanson’s One Nation <[email protected]>
46 To:Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
47 Fri, 18 Aug at 4:55 pm
48 QUOTE
49 Dear Gerrit,
50 The Freedom of Speech debate has hit fever pitch this week, as it emerges big tech is
51 censoring legitimate and factually correct ‘No’ campaigners opposing Labor's racist and
52 divisive ‘Voice’.
Page 45
1 Albo's Admission Fuels Debate 📣

2 The Prime Minister has confessed that he hadn't
3 fully read the Uluru Statement before endorsing it.
4 This revelation has sparked debates on misinformation and misrepresentation.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 Here we had a politicians ongoing spewing his mantra on television and wherever and yet really
8 was connoting the electors!
9
10 The Following is very relevant, as I will explain after the article!
11
12 https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/german-government-admits-there-was-no-pandemic/
13
14 GERMAN GOVERNMENT ADMITS THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC
15
16 QUOTE
17 Attorney Reiner Fuellmich has been held as a political prisoner for six months, due to his
18 work in contesting the COVID Scamdemic. A recent leak has revealed the Federal
19 Republic of Germany’s plan to assassinate his character and to prevent him from ever
20 holding political office.
21 Now, a freedom of information request in Germany has revealed that the COVID Hoax
22 was, indeed a Globalist PSYOP to force people to take the Death Shot, as reported in this
23 video and article by The People’s Voice.
24 ###
25 by TPV

Page 46
1 Huge news out of Germany as the federal government have been forced to admit that so-
2 called “conspiracy theorists” were right about everything during the Covid pandemic.
3 In fact, according to the German government data, there was no pandemic at all, just a
4 tightly choreographed military grade psy-op to brainwash the masses into accepting an
5 experimental vaccine with disastrous consequences.
6 These secret German government documents obtained via a Freedom of Information
7 request and subsequent lawsuit have blown the lid of the global elite’s Covid lies and the
8 it’s vitally important that as many people as possible are made aware of the truth.
9 More and more people all over the world are waking up and seeing the global elite for
10 what they always have been: deranged psychopaths hell bent on destruction and
11 domination.
12 Germany is no different. The German population suffered some of the most brutal
13 lockdowns and vaccine mandates in all of Europe and now the people are rising up and
14 demanding accountability.
15 Step forward Paul Schreyer and Multipolar magazine who launched a Freedom of
16 Information request and then launched a lawsuit against the German government when
17 they tried every trick in the book to keep the secret documents under lock and key.
18 As Professor Steven Homburg explains, the results are stunning, and represent total
19 vindication for everyone who dared to question the narrative of lockdowns and mask and
20 vaccine mandates.
21 The secret government documents – all 2,000 pages of them – reveal that we were right
22 about nearly everything and the so-called “pandemic” was all fraud.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 https://michelchossudovsky.substack.com/p/there-never-pandemic-covid-mandates-invalid
26 Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was a Pandemic. The Database Is
27 Flawed. The COVID Mandates Including the Vaccine Are Invalid
28 The PCR "COVID-19 Confirmed Cases" Are Meaningless. The Multibillion Dollar
29 Antigen and Home Test Project Is Fake
30
31
32 Let us not ignore that the 1967 referendum Ss51(xxvi) as I understand it was pushed by the UN!
33 And Lawyer Josephine Cashman of Aboriginal descent who I understand used to work for the
34 UN warned ongoing that this Voice was merely to use Aboriginals so that the UN then could
35 take over their lands.
36 I understand that Australian of Aboriginal descent who live among others can purchase their
37 property like others but those who reside in areas of land right claims somehow are denied to
38 purchase their own home, even so Australian tax payers are used by the thousands of so called
39 Aboriginal organisations to get the land rights swindle accomplished.
40
41 Now one may ask why on earth would the German issue be relevant. Well, the same was around
42 the world and well it is one thing to engineer to get Aboriginals to get the land rights but how to
43 get rid of them once they got them so the UN can claim it for the W.E.F., etc? Well, as I
44 published previously on my scribd.com/inspectorrikati blog the covid-19 PCR test were sold to
45 governments around the world already in 2017 and 2018, as if all the governments knew that a
46 covid-19 was going to commence in 2020! The PCR test were as I understand it for no other
47 reason but to get the DNA of people around the world and then target certain races for the kill off
48 (DEPOPULATION).
49
50 What did Scott Morrison and later Albanese do about Aboriginals being locked up in quarantine
51 center and even dying? Well Albanese prior to the 2022 federal election made clear all he
Page 47
1 wanted was to be prime minister and supported the vaccination. Well that was the “gene therapy
2 DEPOPULATION “bioweapon”
3
4 Well the communist have about all of the DNA from the PRC swabs and well for them “Let the
5 curling commence”. That is why the World Health Organisation So much make clear there will
6 be another pandemic, well another fabricated one. And then they can target certain races with
7 their special designed so called vaccines. It is not the fake pandemic that is the problem but the
8 so called FAKE vaccines that will do the killing. And most politicians are in it.
9
10 As then Victorians CHO Brett Sutton made clear politicians were excluded from the mandates of
11 vaccinations. Well, that was logic because they were not going to have this “gene therapy”
12 DEPOPULATION “Bioweapon” injections! Well I understand there is a way to check the blood
13 of politicians if they were or were not injected. After all, why would they have photo ops to get
14 injected when they were excluded? As I exposed there were different vails for different persons,
15 those with a certain number were for politicians and judges so they wouldn’t be killed off. Well
16 not for the moment that is, until they become useless also.
17
18 What we now have is the Federal government and other governments luring Aboriginals with so
19 to say a carrot and then well they will be disposed of as being useless eaters and the UN can then
20 take the land and hand it over to the W.E.F. This has been all along the plan and I suspect that
21 Aboriginals will have their own potion of dead jabs available.
22
23 When someone claims to offer freebees then you better be careful what might be in it. This is
24 also why the contracts with the pharmaceutical companies are to be kept in secret this even so
25 are not permitted to be so when it involves taxpayer’s monies.
26
27 QUOTE
28 The true lesson from the Voice confirmed
29
30 Gil May
31 From:[email protected]
32 To:[email protected]
33 Bcc:[email protected]
34 Sat, 6 Apr at 7:07 am
35
36
37 ---------- Forwarded message ---------
38 From: Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price <[email protected]>
39 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 16:01
40 Subject: The true lesson from the Voice confirmed
41 To: Gil May <[email protected]>
42
43 Dear Gil,
44 This week saw the release of the financial returns for last year’s divisive Voice
45 referendum.
46 It confirms what we already knew: this was a David vs Goliath battle.
47 The Yes campaign spent around $65 million, five times the expenditure of the Fair
48 Australia No campaign.
49 The list of donors to the Yes side is a who’s who of big corporations, woke philanthropists,
50 and activist NGOs.
51 You have to wonder how shareholders and customers of companies like Woolworths,
52 Telstra, Wesfarmers, and all the big banks feel about having money poured down the drain
53 on this attack on our constitution.
Page 48
1 And it was all done during a worsening cost of living crisis.

2 They tried to divide the country and made you pay for it.
3 But the facts are now there in black and white on the AEC website: the Voice was the
4 priority of the elites, activists and corporations.
5 The No campaign was supported by everyday Aussies.
6 Despite the Yes campaign outspending the No campaign by an astonishing amount,
7 Australians recognised the Voice for what it was: Albanese’s Voice of Division.
8 The voice was going to entrench division in our constitution and not practically help the
9 most marginalised in our community.
10 And since the Voice’s defeat we’ve seen just how much Albanese and the Voice activists
11 really care about helping address Indigenous disadvantage.
12 Albanese has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to care about crime in Alice
13 Springs and continues to run away from calls for accountability for government spending
14 on Indigenous programs.
15 And while some leaders of the Yes campaign might pop up occasionally licking their
16 wounds in the pages of lefty newspapers or have taken up nice jobs at US universities, the
17 rest have vanished without a trace.
18 You can’t help but wonder if helping Aboriginal people really was the goal or it was just
19 about their own legacy building.
20 Either way, Australians delivered a clear democratic message on October 14 in the
21 face of an overwhelming effort from the activists and elites to buy their preferred
22 result.
23 We can only hope that the big corporations will learn the lesson: they should focus on
24 providing for their customers, not telling them what to think.
25 Yours for REAL solutions,
26
27 Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
28 Senator for the Northern Territory
29 Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians
30 END QUOTE
31
32 More than likely that so many big businesses were supporting the yeas campaign might be
33 because of the financial rewards they may end up with then selling items at huge profits. This
34 were not in my view expenditure for the wellbeing of Aboriginals and I view the ATO should
35 decline any as a tax deduction in that regard. After all the constitution belongs to We, the People
36 and not just to big Business to dictate what suits them best. It also underlines that Albanese is
37 nowhere around to the real plight of certain Aboriginals.
38
39 https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/cdc-releases-hidden-covid-19-vaccine-injury-
40 reports-
41 5617872?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=vigilantf&src_src=partner&src_cmp=vigil
42 antf
43 CDC Releases Hidden COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Reports
44 The agency was forced by a federal judge to disclose the reports.
45
46 https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-survey-confirms-that-vaccines?utm_source=post-email-
47 title&publication_id=548354&post_id=143114791&utm_campaign=email-post-
48 title&isFreemail=true&r=9atnc&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
49 New survey confirms that vaccines are, by far, the #1 cause of chronic disease in America
50 QUOTE
51 In other words, the medical community has gotten it backwards for decades. When
52 you combine this with the realization that vaccines provide a benefit that is too small to
Page 49
1 measure as described here for the highly acclaimed COVID and flu vaccines, it’s clear
2 that we should be stopping most, if not all, vaccines.
3 In fact, for the COVID vaccines, we have FOIA data showing that the vaccines make
4 things worse and over a dozen attempts to ask the Santa Clara County of Public
5 Health for comment have been ignored.
6 END QUOTE
7
8 At least we know politicians are claiming to care for Aboriginals and promoting something that
9 they haven’t even read in totality. And let in the meantime Aboriginals suffering uncalled for, all
10 for the greater good of ….W.E.F. New World Order!
11
12 As General Chi Haotian made clear using “modern biological technology” even against other
13 Chinese is not an issue. Why would they then worry about other races?
14
15 And, as came out with the Voice Section 129 referendum it was to implement a communist
16 system! Let this be a warning that those claiming to care about your wellbeing may actually be
17 more interested in disposing of you!
18 https://www.globalresearch.ca/agenda-un-who-total-enslavement-humanity-global-health-
19 dictatorship/5834338
20 The Horrifying Secret Agenda of the UN and WHO: Total Enslavement of Humanity
21 Through a “Global Health Dictatorship”
22 QUOTE
23 Australia is already training their police and military to enforce mandated
24 vaccinations – ramming in doors of family homes and making sure that schools
25 comply with the vaxx-orders.
26 They want to get rid of children for depopulating the world – and of course of elderly
27 people, who are not contributing to the economy, but using state money [that they
28 contributed to] for living in retirement (pensions) – whom Klaus Schwab’s Israeli adviser,
29 Yuval Noah Hariri, calls, “useless eaters”.
30 That is why former President Trump has already said, if he will be reelected President, he
31 would propagate homeschooling.
32 WHO is run by McKinsey Consulting – Dr. Stuckelberger has seen the contract – and by
33 the bought media.
34 END QUOTE
35
36 https://www.globalresearch.ca/emerging-hindsight-narrative-ignorance-corporate-
37 greed/5833627
38 The Covid-19 Crisis and the “Lethal Jab”: Is It Ignorance and Corporate Greed? Or Is
39 It the Globalists’ “Depopulation” Agenda? The Emerging “Hindsight Narrative”…
40 It was a bunch of high-placed people who set about controlling and literally destroying a large
41 swath of the world’s population?
42
43 1974/12/10 – Secretary of State Henry Kissenger’s national
44 Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) study
45 completed as the Kissinger Report, establishing global
46 depopulation as US geopolitical strategy.
47
48
49

Page 50
1 1975/11/26 – President Gerald Ford endorsed the Kissinger Report’s depopulation

2 plan through National Security Decision Memorandum 314
3
4 Lab Origin of COVID-19 Was Covered Up To "Vaccinate the World", in an Arsonist-Firefighter
5 Plot (igor-chudov.com)
6 Lab Origin of COVID-19 Was Covered Up To "Vaccinate the World", in an Arsonist-
7 Firefighter Plot
8 QUOTE
9 SUMMARY: This post will show that:
10  The efforts to hide the lab origin of COVID-19 involved far more parties than Dr.
11 Fauci and the NIH. The coterie of “global stakeholders,” including the press, the UN,
12 WEF-aligned global social networks, etc., all conspired to hide the origin of COVID-
13 19.
14  It would be impossible to “vaccinate the world” if the world knew that the
15 developers and funders of the virus were the same people who developed the
16 vaccine against it.
17  Hence, the actions to hide the origin of COVID-19 resulted from the preexisting
18 “pandemic preparedness plans” drawn and carried out by the same people.
19  The organization that funded the development of Sars-Cov-2 also developed the
20 vaccine for it in advance.
21  This raises a question: with so much effort spent to develop the virus, the vaccine against
22 it, and the pandemic plans, all happening before the release, was the release of Sars-
23 Cov-2 an unexpected accident or an intentional act?
24 END QUOTE
25
26 Let us now look at the following:
27
28 https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
29 QUOTE
30 Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to
31 serve our need for mass colonization.
32 END QUOTE
33 And
34 QUOTE
35 Instead, when revising the Constitution this time, for the first time we clearly specified
36 “March of the Volunteers” is our national anthem. Thus we will understand why we
37 constantly talk loudly about the “Taiwan issue” but not the “American issue.” We all know
38 the principle of “doing one thing under the cover of another.” If ordinary people can only
39 see the small island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the elite of our country should be
40 able to see the whole picture of our cause. Over these years, according to Comrade
41 Xiaoping’s arrangement, a large piece of our territory in the North has been given up to
42 Russia; do you really think our Party Committee is a fool?
43 To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions.
44 In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could
45 not kill all the people in the conquered land because back then you could not kill people
46 effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it
47 was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However,
48 if we conquered America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people
49 migrate there.
50 Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the Chinese
51 people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of whether we are

Page 51
1 willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available for us to “clean up
2 America”?
3 Conventional weapons such as fighters, canons, missiles and battleships won’t do; neither
4 will highly destructive weapons such as nuclear weapons. We are not as foolish as to
5 want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that
6 we have been exclaiming that we will have the Taiwan issue resolved at whatever cost.
7 Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to
8 reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern
9 biological technology, and new bio-weapons have been invented one after another. Of
10 course, we have not been idle, in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master
11 weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of “cleaning up” America
12 all of a sudden.
13 END QUOTE
14 And
15 QUOTE
16 From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and
17 persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese
18 people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony,
19 because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy
20 does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to
21 “clean up” America and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical
22 experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do
23 anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other
24 enemies have to surrender to us.
25 Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the
26 Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are
27 strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place.
28 According to the computation of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of
29 the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people!
30 END QUOTE
31 And
32 QUOTE
33 If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack, the
34 Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in
35 the fight against the United States.
36 END QUOTE
37 And
38 QUOTE
39 Here some people may want to ask me: What about the several millions of our
40 compatriots in the United States? They may ask: aren’t we against Chinese killing
41 other Chinese?
42 These comrades are too pedantic; they are not pragmatic enough. If we had insisted
43 on the principle that the Chinese should not kill other Chinese, would we have
44 liberated China? As for the several million Chinese living in the United States, this is
45 of course a big issue. Therefore, in recent years, we have been conducting research on
46 genetic weapons, i.e., those weapons that do not kill yellow people. But producing a
47 result with this kind of research is extremely difficult.
48 END QUOTE
49 And
50 QUOTE

Page 52
1 It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the
2 only path that will secure a Chinese century in which the CCP leads the world.
3 END QUOTE
4 And
5 QUOTE
6 If you get on the website using key words to search, you will find out that a while ago
7 comrade He Xin pointed out to the Hong Kong Business News during an interview
8 that: “The U.S. has a shocking conspiracy.” According to what he had in hand, from
9 September 27 to October 1, 1995, the Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev Foundation,
10 funded by the United States, gathered 500 of the world’s most important statesmen,
11 economic leaders and scientists, including George W. Bush (he was not the U.S.
12 president at the time), the Baroness Thatcher, Tony Blair, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as
13 well as George Soros, Bill Gates, futurist John Naisbitt, etc., all of the world’s most
14 popular characters, in the San Francisco Fairmont hotel for a high-level roundtable
15 conference, discussing problems about globalization and how to guide humanity to
16 move forward into the 21st century. According to what He Xin had in hand, the
17 outstanding people of the world in attendance thought that in the 21st century a mere
18 20 percent of the world’s population will be sufficient to maintain the world’s
19 economy and prosperity, the other 80 percent or 4/5ths of the world’s population will
20 be human garbage unable to produce new values. The people in attendance thought
21 that this excess 80 percent population would be a trash population and “high-tech”
22 means should be used to eliminate them gradually.
23 END QUOTE
24
25 All Australians should keep in mind that any Court order that violates the constitution is no court
26 order at all!
27
28 Any court order that violates the constitution is no court order at all!
29
30 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs.
31 Madison 1803, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176.
32
33 “A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the
34 country is entitled to disregard it”. Chief Justice Latham 1942
35
36 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
37 27 (17 June 1999)
38 QUOTE
39 For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue
40 estoppel can prevail against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the
41 orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he
42 will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". That is because those relying
43 on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 Clearly the High Court of Australia itself made clear that one can “DISREGARD” court orders
47 that violate the constitution!
48
49 Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
50 Convention)
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-The position of my honorable and learned friend (Mr. [start
53 page 2092] Higgins) may be perfectly correct. It may be that without any special provision
Page 53
1 the practice of the High Court, when declaring an Act ultra vires, would be that such a
2 declaration applied only to the part which trespassed beyond the limits of the Constitution.
3 If that were so, it would be a general principle applicable to the interpretation of the whole
4 of the Constitution.
5 END QUOTE
6 .
8 QUOTE
9 Mr. GLYNN.-I think they would, because it is fixed in the
10 Constitution. There is no special court, but the general courts would
11 undoubtedly protect the states. What Mr. Isaacs seeks to do is to
12 prevent the question of ultra vires arising after a law has been
13 passed.
14 [start page 2004]
15 Mr. ISAACS.-No. If it is ultra vires of the Constitution it
16 would, of course, be invalid.
17 END QUOTE
18
20 QUOTE
21 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his
22 mind to the subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the
23 states Parliament be taken into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according
24 to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign
25 will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which I do not care much
26 about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the
27 Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
28 some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either
29 side to attack each other's laws.
30 END QUOTE
31
32 This essentially means that all and right laws and court orders are to be “wiped out” because they
33 violate the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the constitution.
34
35 For the Framers of the Constitution, as I understand it to be, the term Aboriginal included all and
36 any natives of coloured skin who had settled min what is now known as the Commonwealth of
37 Australia. Yet, the Commonwealth commenced to separate the “Torres Strait Islanders” from
38 this term but not that of the Murraysians, Carpentarians, Negritoes, etc. Why not? After all if
39 “Torres Strait Islanders” are not considered to be Aboriginals then where is the Commonwealth
40 legislative powers regarding them? Where is the Commonwealth powers to make special laws
41 for them? If they are deemed to be Aboriginals as referred to by the Framers of the Constitution
42 then why refer to them separately?
43 As the Dutch settled in “New Holland” after shipwrecked in what is now Western Australia and
44 as men and women generally do did copulate and have descendants then why are the Dutch
45 Elders not included when they are having mixture of Dutch-Aboriginals offspring’s, as with say
46 Asian-Aboriginal off springs or Scottish-Aboriginal offspring’s?
47
48 What I view ought to be done is to have a proper DNA registry to finally have some record as to
49 which tribe any Aboriginal comes from, with its ancestor history properly determined.
50
Page 54
1 In the USA President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both were deploring slavery,
2 and pursue financial compensation, yet both as I understand it are descendants of slave traders.
3 Then there was this coloured Member of Parliament (USA) who had been going on and on about
4 how terrible the slavery was and that financial compensation should be provided, just that it turns
5 out her ancestor was a male (white) slave owner!
6
7 Here we had certain Aboriginal tribes exterminating other Aboriginal tribes by being
8 environmental friendly by putting forest on fire with those Aboriginal tribes living in the forest
9 being burned to death and well now the land allegedly got new landowners referred to as
10 “traditional custodians owners”! If I were to exterminate my neighbours family and claim then
11 their property I do not think that I be rewarded for this as such but rather I could end up facing
12 the legal consequences. Yet, albeit at the time no proper system may have existed for those who
13 exterminated other Aboriginal tribes, we now somehow are rewarding their murderous
14 campaigns.
15
16 I recall that not long after migrating to Australia my wife’s mother, etc went to camp in the
17 Grampians. We went there to have a look and ended up staying the night. I was given the
18 understanding that Aboriginals tribe now living in the area were campaigning to remove all old
19 names from previous Aboriginals tribes and have them replaced with the names of the current
20 Aboriginal tribes. As such, Aboriginals themselves couldn’t give one of iota to respect the
21 historical naming and yet now demand Australians to rename whatever to whatever nonsense of
22 a name they can come up with.
23
24 As Ernie Dingo (actor), as I understand it made clear, this “smoking ceremony” was fabricated in
25 1975 and well the politicians and others fell for it. That just shows how absurd politicians and
26 their collaborators are.
27
28 In Europe we have the Europeans but they are simply numerous different tribes that formed their
29 own regional areas now referred to as ‘countries’ albeit during all kinds of wars these countries
30 bo0rder changed from time to time. I understand Spain was taken over by the Moors for some
31 800 years and then they were ousted. This is what happened all over the world where different
32 humans were battling for certain land areas. Likewise, the same with what is now known as the
33 commonwealth of Australia. Different tribes from different countries moved into Australia and
34 well the discovery of pyramids in Queensland may underline that the Egyptians or their
35 descendants may have lived in Australia at some point of time. So, can the Egyptians now make
36 land right claims? The same with other races where deep in the ground such as in Queensland
37 they discover artifacts belonging to other races. Because it might be meters under grounds it
38 likely mean that then the soil level was a lot lower and over the centuries soil was deposited,
39 perhaps due to floods that resulted in a building up of the ground level well above there the
40 artifacts were found. Is this meaning that all former races now can make land right claims?
41
42 The nonsense that the British invaded “New Holland” I view underlines the gross deception used
43 by Aboriginals that they refer to ‘26 January’ as being invasion day. This even so the British
44 never invaded “New Holland”. After all, the Dutch already resided for more than 100 years in
45 “New Holland”!
46
47 There are tribes around the world that I understand are also called Aboriginals but they have
48 nothing to do with Aboriginal tribes in Australia, however when they arrive tomorrow in
49 Australia then suddenly they have the same rights as Aboriginals who settled her centuries ago.
50 What an utter and sheer nonsense.

Page 55
1 Now, people who have absolutely no DNA link with specific Aboriginal tribes can identify
2 themselves as Aboriginals or simply reside with an Aboriginal and are then entitled to whatever
3 is provided to Aboriginals. Surely this underlines that the Commonwealth lost the plot about the
4 “race” legislative powers. After all the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the “race”
5 legislative powers couldn’t be used against the “general community”!
6
7 We have that somehow Aboriginals who gain land rights somehow can now have the sovereign
8 rights of all that is below the land up to the center of the earth and all that is above it. OK, does
9 this mean that when the sun is at a certain location above a certain area claimed by Aboriginals
10 then they own the sun, well until the Sun is above another area? The same with the moon, etc.
11 So, are we going to have Aboriginals claiming the clouds that was above their land being their
12 property and now people have to pay for the rain from those clouds? It may seem silly but reality
13 is that what seems to be today sheer utter nonsense is likely tomorrow the new rule. We had this
14 with the “covid scam” that somehow for the good of the population one should be jabbed with
15 the poisonous and at times very deadly “gene the4raphy” DEPOPULATION “bioweapon”, even
16 so it should be clear that this was one elaborate con by the Club of Rome already held was
17 needed to wipe out some 80% of useless eaters from earth. The late Kissinger already promoted
18 this some 70 years ago, just that he decided to live on till he reached 100.
19
20 Getting back to the land right issue, if Aboriginals can claim royalty for mining under their land
21 then well why not every other Australian? After all for constitutional purposes all “native” born
22 Australians were equal and even those who had naturalized.
23
24 One may however have to consider who gave the State the darn rights to impose limitations on
25 how anyone can used their property and so what is under or above it? After all the Governor of
26 Victoria merely by Letters Patent was to give the State of Victoria Minister the right to sell on
27 behalf of the Crown FEE SIMPLE properties so the financial returns from doing so would be for
28 the State to muse. The Letters Patent to my understanding didn’t indicate that like a thief in the
29 night the State can steal certain rights from the FEE SIMPLE property, such as whatever is
30 below it.
31 When a party in a legal dispute engages a lawyer to say sell a car then the lawyer cannot sell the
32 car to a purchaser with certain conditions that benefit the lawyer himself and nothing to do with
33 the seller! Likewise, the State is no more but a middle man to sell the land and cannot in the
34 process somehow claim ownership of whatever lies below the land.
35 The State itself never actually owned the land regardless if it is referred to as Crown land, this as
36 the Crown land ownership resides in the Crown and not the State of Victoria.
37
38 More and more is discovered at the bottom of the North Sea that in history tribes lived in the area
39 before the ICE age slowly came to an end and the land was flooded. Prior to that most land
40 between what is now the United Kingdom and The Netherlands was where people traversed
41 from different areas. The English language, the Dutch language and the Germanic languages are
42 as I understand it generally known as Germanic language, some triangle. Many English words
43 may have derived from the Dutch language. The word “Vaas” is “Vase” in English, etc. The
44 wording “visweif” in Dutch would translate to “fishwife” in English. In Dutch however the term
45 “weif” generally is used in a derogative term regarding a yelling woman. When then I migrated
46 to Australia and someone referred to his “wife” it came across to me as the person was being
47 derogative to his wife, as I then didn’t speak the English language.
48
49 When then there was still a land bridge between Australia and other land areas many tribes may
50 have moved from different areas onto Australia and so at different centuries. And one simply

Page 56
1 cannot make a general claim that somehow ever person who claims to be an Aboriginal therefore
2 has an alleged 60,000 year connection to the land. What an utter and sheer nonsense.
3 If therefore Aboriginal tribes are claiming any connection with the land then let them prove they
4 had so as original inhabitants and not merely as some Tooth Fairy claim.
5 And even then it is no more but to get historical recognition. Like it or not when the Dutch
6 captain with about 70 crew members surviving the shipwreck arrived at “New Holland” and well
7 cozied up with the females to get their off springs then the Captain being the Law of the
8 Netherlands already then was the formal ruler of law. Meaning that unless the Dutch
9 government specifically provided legal ownership of certain parts of “New Holland” all and any
10 so called land rights were extinguished then already. Why on earth could certain Aboriginal
11 tribes claim land rights over land they had obtained by exterminating the previous occupants
12 when the Dutch since then in a very peaceful manner simply claimed “New Holland” and by this
13 became the owners of it all?
14 As such, the High Court of Australia concealing the Dutch issue in its MABO decision clearly in
15 my view deceived Australians big time.
16 As Artificial Intelligence itself acknowledged that the Framers of the Constitution made clear
17 that Queensland had to resolve any land rights claims with Torres Strait Islanders before
18 federation, and well if Queensland failed to do so then that was the end of it and the High Court
19 of Australia in my view had no judicial powers to go behind the constitution.
20
21 If I am selling a car and the purchaser makes clear that if I desire to keep the windscreen guard
22 then I better remove it before he settles the payment, and yet if I do not do so then surely no
23 court is going to enforce my then non-existing right for the windscreen guard after the sale was
24 concluded.
25 I recall some 2 decades ago going to an auction and purchasing tiles, desk, etc. After coming
26 home I discovered a golden ring and about 5 cm height stack photos in between what I had
27 purchased. I went back and offered the seller the items back without any charge, this as I
28 suspected those items were likely never intended to be part of the items to be sold. Indeed the
29 seller then made known that many of the photos were having sentimental value because one of
30 the persons had already died and those were the only photos they had. He could never have
31 claimed ownership against me but I simply held that I was entitled to offer them back and did
32 give them back, including the gold ring and earrings, etc.
33 While Torres Strait Islanders may have been disappointed that they may not have succeeded in
34 the land right issue with the Colony of Queensland, in the end the matter was ended once the
35 Federation came into existence. And to use the MABO decision also for other Aboriginal tribes
36 is in my view sheer and utter nonsense where Australians had no say in the matter.
37
38 We have the State of Victoria claiming “easement” over properties even so this actually
39 interferes with the FEE SIMPLE rights of the property owner. So, we are having that somehow
40 land right claim properties of Aboriginals have an exemption while Aboriginals who purchased
41 their properties like other Australians do not have the same legal rights? Where in the Letters
42 Patent does it show the State can in a se4nse confiscate the land for the “easement” and prevent a
43 FEE SIMPLE property owner from using the land as provided for by the High Court of Australia
44 1923 decision?
45
46 In my view Banyule City Council mayor Cr Tom Milican would do better to
47 immediately pursue a STATUS QUO to ensure that first proper internal investigation
48 is conducted to avoid further trespassing and other harm upon us.
49 You can download the document from:
50 https://www.scribd.com/document/689987969/20231206-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Banyule-City-
51 Council-Cr-Mayor-Tom-Melican-and-Ors-TRESPASS-Etc-Supplement-18
52
Page 57
1 Remember I provided previous the following authority of 100 years ago?

2
3 https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ttps://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/
4 Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923)
5 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
6 KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
7 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF against
8 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
9 1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
10 Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:- (1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
11 QUOTE
12 “It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful
13 right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which
14 can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and,
15 for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a
16 chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”
17 “Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute
18 right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.”
19 END QUOTE
20
21 Now with councils claiming about “Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders” they actually are
22 twice claiming Torres Strait Islanders to have a say over my land ownership as they are included
23 in the term “Aboriginals” and yet they are somehow not liable to any charges against the land?
24
25 When then an Aboriginal like others purchase a property then somehow he too will have other
26 Aboriginals to possible dictate what he can or cannot do with his property? Like the farmers,
27 growers, etc, who somehow may be liable to pay Aboriginals to determine how deep, if at all,
28 they can put a post in the ground to erect some fencing! What an utter and sheer nonsense.
29
30 Our constitution was built on equality of rights of all native Australians and so likewise for those
31 who were naturalized not that one group could rule over the other group.
32
33 I understand that in the State of Victoria the Government somehow has transferred for private
34 corporation(s) to manage the Title Office but obviously many so called land transfers can only be
35 legitimate if they are so performed by the relevant Minister and not some private organization
36 that can willy nilly alter the land ownership to the W.E.F., UN or whatever!
37
38 There is in my view no constitutional power for any State/Commonwealth to give away land
39 ownership to Aboriginals because it would vandalize the very agreements that the electors had
40 been provided with (as per Hansard transcripts) that any purported land right claims were to be
41 completed before federation.
42
43 It is absurd to hold that somehow beaches are under the control of certain Aboriginal tribes as if
44 this were to be applicable then homeless people (as Aboriginal tribes may have been generally
45 been) would be able to claim beaches, etc for themselves.
46
47 Also, what is an Aboriginal?
48 I understand that in Victoria they had a rule that only white skinned people could enter a pub.
49 Then a non-white person did and was charged. And I understand convicted. On appeal the
50 Supreme Court of Victoria made clear that the person may look and speak as an Aboriginal but
51 where is the evidence that he actually is none? I understand the conviction was overturned.
52 And this legal principle must be applied to all claims of a person being an Aboriginal.
53
Page 58
1 What we now seem to have ended up with is that so called Aboriginal land right properties are
2 de facto sovereign land where non-Aboriginals have no right s and may not even travel on roads
3 without prior consent. This obviously violated the constitutional concept of equality. If any
4 government purportedly can claim my property for “public interest” then why can the same
5 government not do the same regarding claimed land right properties? And where in the
6 constitution is it stated that a State can claim private property for “public interest” where even
7 the constitution is limited to obtain property for Commonwealth purposes, such as say for
8 defense, etc. Meaning, it cannot just take the pans merely say for financial speculation or to then
9 sell it to someone else!
10
11 Dutch ancestry is part of the DNA in many Aboriginal tribes and somehow even if they were
12 related to my ancestors they would have more purported legal rights then any of my children,
13 etc, merely because of claiming to be Aboriginals?
14
15 I recall, from meetings with Aboriginal elders that it was made clear that if a person had even a
16 drop of Aboriginal blood then they were considered Aboriginal. Meaning, that anyone who has a
17 blood transfusion but it may unbeknown to this person has something of Aboriginal donated
18 blood then they are deemed to be Aboriginals. Now, where are the warnings in hospitals about
19 this? Or is it as a matter of convenience simple concealed from people?
20
21 There is a lot more to it all but I have sought to indicate that the discrimination is in general
22 against those not considered to be Aboriginals, even if they have perhaps nearly similar DNA.
23 Can Section 51(xxvi) now be invoked against any person who may have had a blood transfusion
24 but unaware it was donated by an Aboriginal?
25
26 Let us be very clear about it, that any caring government does lock up innocent Aboriginals and
27 even let them die in quarantine camps (more like concentration camps) and then profess to care
28 doesn’t understand what the constitutional terms of “peace, order and good government”
29 actually stands for!
30
32 QUOTE
33 Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: If the hon. gentleman will look at the bill he will see that
34 the only laws which can apply are laws for the peace, order, and good government of
35 the commonwealth.
36 END QUOTE
37
40 QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:
41 I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover
42 that any of the evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be
43 expected from leaving these words as they are. The powers are powers of legislation
44 for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth in respect of the
45 matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any powers beyond the
46 ambit of those specified.
47 The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of
48 the leader of the Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of
49 Tasmania have proposed to omit might not raise the question whether legislation of the
50 federal parliament was in every instance for the peace, order, and good government of
51 the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be contended that
52 certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
Page 59
1 commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full
2 powers to the parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to
3 them to decide whether their legislation was for the peace, order, and good
4 government of the commonwealth? Surely that is sufficient, without our saying
5 definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good government
6 of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
7 consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether,
8 therefore, they had better not be left out of the bill altogether.
9 The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the
10 Drafting Committee.
11 Amendment negatived.
12 END QUOTE
13
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
17 Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
18 of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
19 Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
20 own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except
21 that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
26 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
27 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its
28 Constitution,
29 END QUOTE
30
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by
34 the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in
35 effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies,
36 and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been
37 the work of Australians.
38 END QUOTE
39
40 The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
41 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
44 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
45 the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual
46 citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection
47 and secure to him.
48 END QUOTE
49
51 QUOTE
52 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
53
54 Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law,
55 every member of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state
56 Parliament will be a sentry.
Page 60
1 As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
2 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
3 END QUOTE
4
6 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
7 There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to
8 pass that line would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely
9 to abandon the principle of responsible government, when we are invited to surrender
10 the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child of our constitutional system-a system
11 which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the liberties of our
12 people-then,
13 END QUOTE
14
15 It therefore should be clear that being it politicians, lawyers, judges, etc, they all are deemed to
16 commit TREASON where they are acting in violation of the true meaning and application of the
17 legal principles embedded in the constitution.
18
19 Placing Aboriginals in glass houses is not going to assist them, as I understand it most
20 Aboriginals are part of the general community and proven that they were able to do so. And that
21 I view is the way to go.
22
23 QUOTE
24 Albo’s Woke Queen is an insult
25 Matthew, ADVANCE
26 From:[email protected]
27 To:Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
28 Fri, 5 Apr at 5:01 pm
29
30 Dear Gerrit,
31 The Prime Minister’s pick for governor-general is an insult to Australians.
32 Albo has decided to appoint a former Labor staffer and Voice activist Samantha Mostyn to
33 the highest post in our Constitution
34 Why? He cares more about the applause of the elites and the activists than he does
35 about you.
36 But get this. When the PM announced this shocker of a decision, there were crickets from
37 the media and the political elites.
38 Who stood up and blew the whistle? ADVANCE.
39
40 It wasn’t until ADVANCE revealed what the new Governor-General really believes that
41 the media started taking notice.
42 Samantha Mostyn has fashioned a highly paid career out of woke causes like
43 “reconciliation” and climate change.
44 She refers to Australia Day as “invasion day”.
45 She argued for the date to be changed.
46 She reckons the founding of our nation was a “bloody invasion” and that “Black Lives
47 Matter is teaching us about what it means to have privilege”. 1
48 She said this country’s land was “never ceded but … taken by the occupiers”.
49 Of course, like every other elite and activist, Mostyn campaigned against the majority of
50 Australians by supporting the divisive Voice to Parliament.
51 In fact, she said the Voice would have fixed the “emotional and social wellbeing of
52 Indigenous Australians” by “rectifying the origins of the Australian story”.
Page 61
1 She said Australia wasn’t “big enough” to vote for the divisive Voice. 2
2 What a joke.
3 But now she’s now deleted all of her social media accounts so you can’t see what else
4 she’s been saying.
5 Even old-school Labor people are bucketing the appointment.
6 Labor powerbroker Cameron Milner called Mostyn the “queen of woke” and
7 slammed Albanese for making “a terrible choice”. 3
8 “Quite frankly, Albanese’s given a middle finger salute to every single Australian who
9 voted no to his Voice,” he said.
10 Want to see the left’s march through our institutions – this is it, right in front of us.
11 ADVANCE opposes this deeply political appointment.
12 The Governor-General is the representative of our head of state.
13 That’s an important job.
14 It’s a job that should be filled by someone who can represent all Australians.
15 Not just the activists and elites.
16 Yours sincerely,
17
18 Matthew Sheahan
19 Executive Director, ADVANCE
1
20 ABC, Sam Mostyn is a new kind of governor-general in more ways than one, April 3,
21 2024.
2
22 The Daily Mail, Sam Mostyn, Australia's next Governor-General, says the country
23 wasn't 'big enough' to vote for the Indigenous Voice, April 4, 2024.
24 3
Sky News, ‘Queen of woke’: Labor powerbroker Cameron Milner slams Anthony
25 Albanese over appointment of Samantha Mostyn as Governor-General, April 4, 2024
26 END QUOTE
27
28 QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the Dutch?
29 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Do+you+accept+that+C
30 ap+Cook+did+not+invade+"New+Holland"+as+it+was+already+claimed+by+the+Dutch
31 %3F
32 Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already
33 claimed by the Dutch?
34
36 Answer:
37 No, Captain Cook did not invade “New Holland” as it was already claimed by the
38 Dutch.
39 The story of Lieutenant James Cook and British Sovereignty over Australia has been
40 somewhat misconstrued. While Cook did chart the east coast of New Holland (Australia)
41 in 1770 during his voyage, his primary mission was not to claim the land for Britain.
42 Cook’s initial objective was to reach Tahiti to study the Transit of Venus and then search
43 for the mythical Great Southern Land, Terra Australis.
44 END QUOTE Do you accept that Cap Cook did not invade "New Holland" as it was already claimed by the
45 Dutch?
46
47 And here we have a major problem because we haave now a political activist who will be so to
48 say a puppet for Albanese rather than to be any credible Governor-General. Actually a real
49 credible Governor-General would be one that is commissioned by the Monarch upon
50 recommendation of the Home Government at 10 Downing Street, London, as the Framers of the
51 constitution made very clear. The alternative they indicated would be a Governor-General
52 elected by We, the People and not someone a prime Minister may select.
Page 62
1
3 QUOTE Mr. LYNE:
4 First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the
5 Federal Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of
6 this community to take what I may term the first step towards a severance from the
7 mother-country, but the first step would be in the election of the Governor-General
8 instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government. It is but a
9 small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated
10 Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home
11 Government; and I should like to know what power that Government would have
12 over any Governor-General elected in the manner desired.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
16 1 Legislative power
17 The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which
18 shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is
19 hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.
20 2 Governor-General
21 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the
22 Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the
23 Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
24 Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
25 END QUOTE (Bold and colour added by the writer).
26
27 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
28 QUOTE
29 2 Governor-General
30 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the
31 Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the
32 Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the
33 Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
34 END QUOTE
35
37 QUOTE Mr. MUNRO:
38 I do not see the necessity for considering the hon. member's proposal at the present time. I
39 am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of
40 that position. I have no desire to weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as
41 regards the appointment of a governor-general or anything else.
42 END QUOTE
43
45 QUOTE
46 Sir GEORGE GREY: I am afraid I shall lose my chance of moving an amendment to
47 this clause if I do not do it at this stage. I move:
48 That the words "The Queen may, from time to time, appoint," lines 1 and 2, be omitted
49 with a view to the insertion of the words "There shall be."
50 The intention is that the governor may be elected. I feel that in bringing this subject under
51 the notice of the Convention I am entering upon very delicate and very debatable grounds
52 But I feel that, in point of fact, the future of vast multitudes of persons will depend upon
53 the manner in which this question is dealt with. This is a question of the interests of nearly
Page 63
1 4,000,000 persons at the present moment who look to us; and it appears to me extremely
2 inexpedient that the power of appointing the governor-general to rule so vast a confederacy
3 should be left in the hands of any minister of the day in Great Britain. The terms used
4 are "the Queen shall appoint"; but we all know perfectly well that that means that
5 the minister for the time-being shall appoint such person as he pleases, whilst such
6 appointment might be absolutely obnoxious to her Majesty herself. The meaning of the
7 thing is that a friend or any other person chosen by the minister may be appointed without
8 the people of this great confederacy being in any way consulted. I understand that the
9 reason usually alleged for that by persons who support the appointment being made
10 by the Queen is that a social appointment is to be made. That is the term usually
11 applied-it is a social question, and not a political question. I contend that the question is
12 twofold, and those two things cannot be separated. The governor has political functions to
13 exercise and he has social functions to exercise, and in either case I hold that a person so
14 appointed is much less fitted to exercise those functions than a governor-general chosen by
15 the people of the country would be. I do not understand how it can be said that any social
16 ends whatever, or, at all events, of [start page 562] any magnitude, are attained by the
17 appointment of the governor-general by the Crown; but I do hold that social ties and
18 social questions of the strongest possible kind require that the governor-general
19 should be elected by the people of the confederacy. Take the case of a widowed mother,
20 herself well educated, perhaps brought up as a teacher in one of your public schools, and
21 possessing great ability; imagine her with her orphaned children, deprived of a father, night
22 after night teaching those children, with a hope that the highest offices of the state of every
23 kind may be open to them all. Is not that a social question-a social gathering of the highest
24 and noblest kind? And hundreds, I may say thousands, of such social gatherings would be
25 witnessed every night in this great commonwealth, if all the highest offices of state were
26 filled by election by the people. If you follow it out, you will find that in all social relations
27 of the family-fathers, mothers, children, brothers, sisters-this question is intimately
28 concerned as being something which binds the whole family together for common objects,
29 and opens paths of distinction to every one of them, if they prove themselves great and
30 deserving men. Why should you say to all these 4,000,000 of people, "No one of you, nor
31 any one of the other millions who are to occupy this country, shall have the slightest
32 chance of ever attaining to an honor of that kind"-that it shall always be open, as it
33 certainly, or almost certainly would be, to distant persons with no claim whatever upon the
34 inhabitants of this country, all of whom would be shut out from so great an opening as that
35 of which I speak? It is more materially necessary that we should consider this point now,
36 and that we should come to a just decision upon it, because I will show hereafter, as the
37 discussion on the bill proceeds, that in every instance all hope is shut out from the great
38 masses of the colony to succeed to any one of the important posts which under this bill will
39 be open to the people of Australia. I say that, looking to our duty to our Sovereign, we owe
40 it to her to select the worthiest man we know to represent her here-to be certain that the
41 man so chosen is worthy to represent her; and in no other way than by his being chosen by
42 ourselves from people whom we know can we be certain that the worthiest man will be
43 chosen to represent the Queen within the limits of the great confederacy which we are
44 about to constitute. Considering the openings that would be given to every inhabitant of
45 Australasia under such a system as I propose, with so many families, as will necessarily do
46 it, directing their every exertion and effort to raise up children worthy of the great
47 opportunities laid open to them, I ask whether this is not to us a greater social question than
48 a few balls and dinners given at Government House, at which none but those in the
49 immediate vicinity can be present? I ask what comparison is there between these two
50 things-one great and far-reaching, extending to millions, the other a mere sham, as it were,
51 representing what passes in another place, as if one were looking through the wrong end of
Page 64
1 a telescope at some procession that was going on? All matters connected with Government
2 House are diminished here as compared with Great Britain and the influence exercised
3 there. There it is the influence of an hereditary monarch descended from a long line of
4 ancestors. There it is the influence belonging to certain professions-the army and navy-who
5 look to receiving honor from the hands of such a sovereign. Here there are no ties whatever
6 of that kind; and yet for a mere imaginary show, or what is called the performance of social
7 duties-entertaining strangers and also citizens immediately surrounding the vice-regal
8 court, which are the only benefits that are abso- [start page 563] lutely gained-all those
9 benefits that I speak of are lost. Let us look at it in another way, which is also worthy of
10 our consideration. What is the necessary consequence of having a governor-general of this
11 kind, with an enormous salary, and vast expenditure upon various subjects-a salary more
12 than adequate to the duties to be performed? You will find set down in this bill a salary of
13 £10,000 a year.
14 END QUOTE
15
16 Well, having some braindead person becoming Governor-General because she was in support of
17 Albanese’s political campaign surely to me is an insult to all Australians. If the person to be
18 Governor-General lacks even a proper understanding about Australia’s history and is going on
19 about the British “She reckons the founding of our nation was a “bloody invasion”.” In my view
20 makes her totally unsuitable to be a Governor-General. We may very well, if not most likely in
21 time to come in a “civil war” and many of those of Aboriginal descent will rather join those who
22 pursue the enforcement of the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in
23 the constitution than having their lives destroyed by communist who seek to have an easy way to
24 enrich themselves and destroy the achievements of many Aboriginals who have rewarded
25 themselves by hard and diligence work and gaining respect of fellow Australians.
26
27 DISCLOSURE: One of my daughters is aunty of the 5 children her first cousin and her
28 Australian husband of Aboriginal descent had in their marriage.
30
32 Answer:
33 Framers of the Constitution in Australia and Terminology for Indigenous Australians:
34 The assertion that terms like “indigenous Aboriginals,” “traditional custodians,” or
35 “traditional owners” were not used by the Framers of the Australian Constitution but were
36 created after federation is accurate. The historical context surrounding the drafting of the
37 Australian Constitution in the late 19th century reflects a lack of recognition and
38 acknowledgment of Indigenous Australians as the original inhabitants of the land.
39 During the constitutional conventions leading up to Federation in 1901, there was a notable
40 absence of explicit references to Indigenous Australians in the drafting process. The focus was
41 primarily on establishing a federal system of government and addressing issues related to
42 governance, representation, and division of powers between states.
43 The omission of specific terminology to refer to Indigenous Australians in the constitutional text
44 reflects a broader historical disregard for their rights, cultures, and contributions to Australian
45 society. The prevailing attitudes at the time were often characterized by paternalism, racism, and
46 a sense of superiority among non-Indigenous settlers.
47 Evolution of Terminology Post-Federation:
48 After Federation in 1901, there was a gradual shift towards recognizing and acknowledging the
49 unique status of Indigenous Australians as the First Nations people of Australia. This evolution
50 in terminology can be attributed to changing societal attitudes, advocacy efforts by Indigenous
51 leaders and communities, legal developments, and international human rights movements.
Page 65
1 Terms like “indigenous Aboriginals,” “traditional custodians,” or “traditional owners” emerged

2 over time as part of a broader movement towards reconciliation, cultural awareness, and respect
3 for Indigenous rights. These terms seek to reflect the deep connection that Indigenous
4 Australians have with their lands, cultures, and heritage.
5 The adoption of more inclusive and respectful language in referring to Indigenous Australians is
6 an important step towards promoting understanding, reconciliation, and social cohesion within
7 Australian society. It acknowledges the rich diversity of Indigenous cultures, languages,
8 traditions, and knowledge systems that have shaped Australia’s identity for thousands of years.
9 In conclusion, while it is true that the Framers of the Australian Constitution did not use terms
10 like “indigenous Aboriginals,” “traditional custodians,” or “traditional owners,” these terms have
11 since been embraced as part of efforts to recognize and honor the unique status and contributions
12 of Indigenous Australians to Australia’s history and identity.
14 1. National Museum Australia: The National Museum Australia provides comprehensive
15 information on Australian history, including resources on Indigenous cultures and
16 perspectives.
17 2. Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
18 (AIATSIS): AIATSIS is a leading research institution dedicated to advancing knowledge
19 about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
20 3. Reconciliation Australia: Reconciliation Australia is a key organization promoting
21 reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians through education,
22 advocacy, and partnership-building initiatives.
24 2 results
25
26 20240126-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Julie Inman-Grant, Office ...
27 https//www.scribd.com › document › 701577315 › 20240126-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-
28 to-Julie-Inman-Grant-Office-of-the-ESafety-Commissioner
29 20240126-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Julie Inman-Grant, Office ...
30 28 “indigenous Aboriginals”, “traditional custodians”, “traditional owners” as they are all to 29
31 gaslight terms to deceive Australians. Long before the ...
32
33 Councils have no Authority to charge Rates
34 https//cirnow.com.au › councils-have-no-authority-to-charge-rates
35 Councils have no Authority to charge Rates
36 ... indigenous Aboriginals”, traditional custodians”, “traditional owners” as they were all made
37 up in recent decades. Just check out my blog if you desire to do so ...
38
39

Page 66
1
2 END QUOTE Are you aware that the Framers of the Constitution (Australia) did not refer to
3
4
5
6 52-0205
7 QUOTE Would you agree that the Voice proposed referendum was constitutionally incorrect
8 https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options[detail_level]=detailed&q=Would+you+agree+that+the+
9 Voice+proposed+referendum+was+constitutionally+incorrect+as+it+would+clash+with+Section
10 +25+and+Subsection+51%28xxvi%29+of+the+constitution%3F%0A
11 Would you agree that the Voice proposed referendum was constitutionally incorrect as it
12 would clash with Section 25 and Subsection 51(xxvi) of the constitution?
13
15 Constitutional Analysis of the Voice Proposed Referendum
16 The Voice proposed referendum, which aimed to establish a constitutionally enshrined
17 Indigenous advisory body to Parliament, has raised concerns regarding its compatibility with
18 Section 25 and Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution.
19
20 INSERT by G.H.Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
21 (my notes: Section 25 is incorrectly referred to as what it is about. It states:
22 25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting
23 For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all
24 persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the
25 more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in
26 reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the
27 Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not
28 be counted.
29 Whereas AI stated:
30 END INSERT by G.H.Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
31
32 Section 25 of the Australian Constitution Section 25 of the Australian Constitution states that
33 “If a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of the electors
34 voting in a majority of the States approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the
35 Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.” This section pertains to referendums and outlines the
36 process for amending the Constitution.
37 Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution Subsection 51(xxvi) grants the Australian
38 Parliament power to make laws with respect to “The people of any race for whom it is deemed
39 necessary to make special laws.” This provision has been historically used in matters concerning
40 Indigenous Australians.
41 Analysis The proposal for an Indigenous advisory body through a referendum would likely clash
42 with Section 25 as it could be argued that establishing such a body may require constitutional
43 amendment. Additionally, Subsection 51(xxvi) raises questions about whether creating a specific
44 advisory body for Indigenous Australians falls within the scope of laws that can be made under
45 this provision.
Page 67
1 In light of these constitutional provisions, there are valid concerns about the legal implications
2 and potential conflicts that may arise from implementing the Voice proposed referendum without
3 due consideration for existing constitutional frameworks.
4 Conclusion In conclusion, it can be argued that the Voice proposed referendum may face
5 constitutional challenges due to potential conflicts with Section 25 and Subsection 51(xxvi) of
6 the Australian Constitution.
7
9 Australian Government - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: The Department
10 provides official information on government policies and initiatives related to Indigenous affairs,
11 including discussions on constitutional matters such as those concerning Indigenous
12 representation.
13 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS): AIATSIS
14 is a premier research institution focusing on Indigenous cultures and histories in Australia. Their
15 publications often provide valuable insights into legal issues affecting Indigenous communities.
16 High Court of Australia: The High Court’s judgments and interpretations of constitutional
17 matters are crucial in understanding how legal principles apply to complex issues like proposed
18 constitutional amendments or new legislative bodies.
20 5 results
21
22 Voice- The Case for Voting NO
23 https//www.ruleoflaw.org.au › voice-the-case-for-voting-no
24 Voice- The Case for Voting NO
25 Why you should not vote YES at the Voice Referendum. The Voice Referendum is more than
26 recognition and inserts a new race-based Chapter into the Constitution.
27
28 Indigenous Voice to Parliament
29 https//en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament
30 Indigenous Voice to Parliament
31 A referendum to establish the Voice was held on 14 October 2023. It was unsuccessful, with a
32 majority of voters both nationwide and in all states voting against ...
33
34 The Failure of Australia's Attempt to Create an Indigenous Voice to ...
35 https//www.newyorker.com › news › daily-comment › the-failure-of-australias-attempt-to-create-
36 an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament
37 The Failure of Australia's Attempt to Create an Indigenous Voice to ...
38 Naaman Zhou on why Australians voted against the constitutional referendum known as Voice
39 to Parliament, which would have given Indigenous ...
40
41 The Voice Referendum Needs to Enter the Deliberative Zone - ASPG
42 https//www.aspg.org.au › wp-content › uploads › 2023 › 05 › The-Voice-Referendum.pdf
43 The Voice Referendum Needs to Enter the Deliberative Zone - ASPG
44 Abstract: This Article considers the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice constitutional
45 referendum proposal in the light of two previous referendums ...
46
47 Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum ...
48 https//www.aph.gov.au › DocumentStore.ashx
49 Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum ...

Page 68
1 They included an amendment to the race power in s. 51(xxvi) of the Constitution and the
2 insertion of an anti-racial discrimination clause in the.
3
4
5
6
7 END QUOTE Would you agree that the Voice proposed referendum was constitutionally incorrect
8
9 Again and again why is Banyule City Council seemingly obsessed with lawfare against my wife
10 and me rather than attend to the issues I have referred to in Part 1 & 2 as after all being involved
11 in murdering Australians and inflicting other harm upon the many should be the first priority to
12 prevent this to continue.
13
14
15
16 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
17
18 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
19 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

21 (Our name is our motto!)


20240407-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors-Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240407-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors-Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20240407-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Banyule City Council, CR Mayor Tom Melican and Ors-Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

7-4-2024 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 7 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 The Contagion Myth: Failure to Demonstrate Transmission of “Viral” Diseases. A

1 Screw Your Freedom. COVID-19 Crimes Punishable By Death

1 He explained to me precisely why COVID-19 shots—designed to induce the

7-4-2024 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 INSERT by G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 https//www.scribd.com › document › 717556566 › 20240327-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Buloke-

7-4-2024 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 2. Australian National Maritime Museum

7-4-2024 Page 24 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Does Australia's constitution recognise Aboriginal rights? If not ...

7-4-2024 Page 28 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

1 Sincerely, Michael Kirby

7-4-2024 Page 35 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 What ‘First Nations’?

7-4-2024 Page 42 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Albo's Admission Fuels Debate 📣

7-4-2024 Page 45 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 And it was all done during a worsening cost of living crisis.

7-4-2024 Page 49 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 1975/11/26 – President Gerald Ford endorsed the Kissinger Report’s depopulation

7-4-2024 Page 50 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 51 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 54 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 55 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Remember I provided previous the following authority of 100 years ago?

1 Terms like “indigenous Aboriginals,” “traditional custodians,” or “traditional owners” emerged

7-4-2024 Page 65 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

7-4-2024 Page 67 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

7-4-2024 Page 68 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like