May Justice Always Prevail: Without Prejudice

1
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr Tony Abbott PM
Cc:
10
26-2-2015
C/o josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Daniel Andrews Premier Victoria daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jessica Marszalek Jessica.marszalek@news.com.au
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
Frank Chung frank.chung@news.com.au
Ref; 20150226-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tony Abbott PM-Re Why a person my use ISIS to justify to commit crimes
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tony,
having since 1982 conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE
ALWAYS PREVAIL it always has been obvious to me how some politicians so to say never
get it. Like the current premier Mr Daniel Andrews who is mouthing himself off, seemingly for
political support, to get tough on men who abuse women and children. Is he for real?
His gender bias shows he simply doesnt understand what is really going on.
.
I will explain below and also why ISIS is used in the process by some. As a
CONSTITUTIONALIST I will also explain some relevant issues.
.
As soon as I was married with my second wife she displayed ongoing violence. Within 5 weeks
so to say our marriage was over. During cross-examination in Family court proceedings she
admitted that she voluntarily became married and that I had actually called of the wedding but
she had later got me to still go ahead with the marriage. The trail judge then interrupted the
cross-examination stating that he accepted she was voluntarily entering into the marriage. Yet, in
his reason of judgment concluded that the wifes violence (including to the children) was clearly
because she had not wanting to enter the marriage. As such the judge was excusing her violence!
After 10 years of her violence to the children it was the children Court who stepped in after she
nearly strangled to death one of the children. She pleaded, upon criminal charges, guilty (through
her lawyer) of assault upon one of the children. She already had pleaded previous guilty (through
her lawyer) to assault upon myself. Both times no conviction recorded and 6 months probation.
This, even so she had even in the police station attacked one of the sleeping children that the
sergeant warned her he would place her in a cell if she did it again.
She was banned from parents club because of her violence.
She was banned from excursions with school children because of her aggressiveness and
violence.
She had violent incidents all around her, such as throwing hot water in the face of a railways
station employee because the machine failed to provide coffee.
Let not forget that the evidence was (by the children through their lawyers, etc) that my wife
(after we were separated) she used in front of the children a large butcher knife to forced me to
stay the night, this while I held my 1 year old daughter (not her child) on my arms.
p1
26-2-2015
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Yet, was it not because of the children Court and the evidence how she was torturing the children
over the years, even breaking a cricket bat on one childs back, etc. one would hold she was an
angel when it came to how the Family Court of Australia portrayed her.
Mind you, when I attended to the police to report an assault by my estranged wife when I was in
the lift holding my 1 year old daughter on my arm, the police laughed and made clear I surely
could have hit her back. It was only that I complained to the chief commissioner the police
finally charged her and again she pleaded guilty while represented by a lawyer.
And you wonder why some men, now having the ability as I do to follow extenuating legal
procedures they then take the law into their own hands where their child or children are violently
abused by their mother?
The courts are far too much female orientated where the male is deemed to be the perpetrator,
regardless the male are often the victim and simply left without police or court assistance then
end up taking the law into their own hands.
.
Women can inflict abuses/harm (even violence) upon a man and somehow she remains to be the
innocent party and the man then is the perpetrator even so having not even retaliated.
A woman can fabricate any version of events and get an intervention order and by this secure
custody of the children and prevent the man to have access to his private documents, his
treasured photos, etc.
Yes, increase the intervention orders and make them much easier to be obtained by women and
you will end up with a lot more murders in the process. After all men who were innocent of any
wrongdoing find that there is no justice because they can be robbed of their rights and the court
system simply doesnt cater for adversary system and the accuser to prove her case. Intervention
orders are issued like lollies to woman.
I recall attending a playgroup with my daughter, where women were openly encouraging others
to get out of the financial mesh of married life by fabricating allegations against their husbands
and so get intervention orders and this then oust the father from the family home and allow them
to take control of all documents, his possessions, etc.
In particular sexual abuse allegations are used as fabricated allegations. I one case I was
successfully assisting a woman with obtaining sole custody of her 2 daughters when only weeks
after gaining the orders she contacted me she got herself in troubles and had to so to say get rid
of the children in the meantime. She urged me to resolve the problem to arrange them to go to
their father. I raised obviously the issue she had accused him throughout the trail of sexual
abusing the eldest child. Upon this she gave me the understanding she had fabricated it all to gain
custody, and had couched the child how to conduct herself. That day I contacted the father and
he gained custody, without involvement of his lawyers. What his lawyers failed to achieve I did.
.
And you wonder why some men tainted with false sexual abuse allegations lose their temper?
The fraudulently obtained intervention orders then also robs them of their treasured memories of
family photos, etc. Yes women can be very cruel to deliberately destroy the fathers pressured
photo memories and do so deliberately and yet in court then play to be an angel.
But let not make out all women to be devils because I understand that ample of men also have to
accept responsibilities of inappropriate conduct. Like one who while his wife was in hospital for
an operation got court orders that she had abandoned the family and had left. After the woman
came out of hospital the husband showed her the court orders she was not permitted to enter the
property, etc. It reportedly took more than a year for this woman to get a court hearing but which
time the court held that as the children had been living with the father it was against their interest
to change custody. As such perjury is rewarded!
p2
26-2-2015
3
This is the sickening kind of court litigation we have not some but hundreds of thousands of
people subjected to, just that it are mainly the men who are suffering.
I had to deal with men who genuine in their own view held that it was better for the child to be
killed then to live with a mother they held acted despicable. You may have different views but
that is because you are not in the emotional state as numerous parents are.
.
The Family Court of Australia to me much must bear the responsibility just that it issues orders
and never is held accountable for the orders it issues.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
I was the one who had to deal with parents who contemplated to kill their child/children and even
contemplated mass murder otherwise, so by killing as many innocent people on the street then,
so they assumed, people would take more notice of the gross injustice caused by intervention
orders.
When you leave a person as like a wounded animal suffering and no matter how innocent this
person might be blame it all on this person then surely you are asking for problems.
The mere fact that without financial support of any government I conducted this special lifeline
service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL may underline I didnt
approve of any killings and so my writings are not intended and neither must be perceived to
justify the killing of any human being.
Many a man gave me the understanding that their life was so they held so much destroyed that
suicide was really to them the only answer.
And here we get to ISIS.
Now those who contemplate suicide and wanting to make a statement, not necessarily regarding
family violence but also not wanting to face a possible time in imprisonment, may just do a
Monis (Lindt Caf) kind of siege, or other despicable action that will become noticeable.
For some the idea of going out so to say in grand style by using ISIS as to draw attention
whereas just committing suicide will likely be not noticeable after all reportedly some 10 people
are committing suicide a day and well we are concerned about far less being killed in motor
car/road accidents as after all that can generate a lot of monies in fines (cash cow mentality), but
how can you fine a person who commits a atrocious act and is killed in the process? There is no
money in that and so why not just ignore it, unless of course it may be used to try to get some
political millage out of it.
When you consider Monis for sure he was going on with religious matters but let us not
overlook he was as prime candidate to pursue suicide because he had just lost his High Court of
Australia case and so was likely facing a prison term regarding outstanding matters and so what
better then to use ISIS as to infamously die? It doesnt mean there are real religious fanatics as
terrorist but we are now going to see more and more people going to use ISIS as a way to excuse
their violence they perpetrate upon others. Why indeed commit suicide in a quite manner when
you can so to say go out of this world with guns blazing in full publicity?
I am a considerable critic upon the High court of Australia but having read the reason of
judgment regarding Monis I am well aware that it was not the court reason of judgment that
could be used as to blame the court for the conduct of Monis rather that I view from dealing for
decades with people contemplating suicide that the loss of the case (no matter how justified)
caused him to embark upon a path of self-destruction and trying to do so in a way which would
achieve national if not international headlines.
Comments like those of premier Daniel Andrews to me are if anything more damaging where he
specifically is referring to women and children and so blame men only.
p3
26-2-2015
4
How does any man have confidence in a system where a premier is so blatant about all for the
women and not regarding violence against men.
The (Victorian) Royal Commission is to deal with violence against women and children but not
against men.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Again, I know what it is to have a large knife on my throat, not knowing if I will be alive the next
second! And to me the comments of Premier Daniel Andrews are ridiculous and indicates to me
the man doesnt understand reality of life.
In my view the Royal Commission should investigate any kind of family violence and not
exclude that against men!
Let there be no mistake, that there are men (as well as women) who are sexual abusing children.
But when you look at sentencing then it is clear that women committing the same kind of sexual
abused generally get a much lighter sentence, if any at all, then men. Obviously the demand for
women equality is not pursued ion the line of sentencing of women!
I had a social working requesting me to deal with a man who she made clear had sexual abused
his daughter, and so had admitted to this but held he had done no wrong.
I assisted the man and as he desired to gain access I didnt hesitate to assist him with his
paperwork. At no time did I criticise him for any conduct towards his daughter, as my issue was
to gain his trust and so not get involved in commenting what he had done to his daughter was or
wasnt acceptable. Rather, I was constantly referring to that he had his rights. After several
months he suddenly announced that what he had done was wrong because his daughter had
rights. As he made clear that I had been pointing out that he had rights but his daughter also had
rights and he had no right to violate them. He gave up the quest for access. It was his decision
and for me I had not wasted my time because I had achieved what I had set out to do to get him
to decide for himself he had violated his daughters rights.
It was afterwards the social worker made know that the man was her brother and she was amazed
I had been able to get him to recognise he was in the wrong to sexual abuse his daughter where
she had been unable to get him to accept this. I explained to her that bashing his head wasnt
going to work. What was important was that he for himself would realise he had violated his
daughters rights, and not merely accept whatever someone else was to claim.
You do not rehabilitate person if you are doing some bashing upon the person telling him/her
they were wrong. What is needed is the person understanding and for himself/herself deciding
that the act was wrong. Some criminals are couched by other criminals as to what to say to a
psychiater and so pretend to have been rehabilitated when they are not. Leaving the community
at the peril of this released criminal.
40
When a person uses drugs, alcohol, etc then this never should be an excuse of diminished
responsibility. We are getting ongoing how lawyers will argue their client had mental problems,
etc. Remember Alan Bond? Well, as soon as he was released from prison he was back working
and somehow the mental issues no longer seemed to be a problem.
45
What we now have is that there may be so to say an avalanche of people who may really not
having anything in common with ISIS but will use it as a way to draw attention to whatever
gruesome act they contemplate doing.
50
Then you have many of the youth today who will join ISIS as after all this is a grand opportunity
to kill real people and not just on some computer game. Having been in the Royal Dutch armed
p4
26-2-2015
5
forces and served in NATO I do not desire to make out that compulsory enlistment is good or
bad for a person as it all depends upon the circumstances of each case in the armed forces. It
might however be useful to consider to reintroduce compulsory military service or to provide for
voluntarily armed services for those on the dole. Many may then lose the quest for wanting to
join ISIS as they might just get an opportunity to use guns in a controlled manner.
I recently wrote an article about conscription and will quote it below:
QUOTE conscription article
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CONSCRIPTION
I was requested to explain and if compulsory vaccination is a form of civil conscription,
and below I have set out my views:
Do understand that those who dont like reading shouldnt get involved in constitutional
issues because there is so to say no short cut as unless you understand/comprehend the true
meaning and application of the constitution you are wasting your time.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
(Inserted
by
No.
81,
1946,
s.
2.)
(xxiiiA.)The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment,
pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any
form
of
civil
conscription),
benefits
to
students
and
family
allowances:
(xxiv.) The service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the
judgments of the courts of the States:
END QUOTE
As I understand it the term civil conscription in the manner used only relates to medical and
dental services and not otherwise. This provision was inserted, to my understanding because
medical practitioners were concerned that otherwise the Federal government could conscript
their services. Hence, to achieve a yes vote for the referendum the wording (but not so as to
authorize any form of civil conscription) was included. If therefore vaccination was
considered part of medical services, then in my view as a CONSTITUTIONALIST it
would violate ss51(xxiiiA).
In constitutional terms the word conscription must be understood as used by the Framers of the
constitution, this even so the referendum was held in 1946. This as you cannot have contradictive
meaning to one and the same word. That is also why the ss51(xxvi) 1967 referendum was a conjob because ss51(xxv) stood for that the Commonwealth couldnt legislate against the general
community as to race legislation and as such the 1967 referendum couldnt achieve the opposite
for Aboriginals but not intended for other races. The meaning of a word or provision must be
equal to all who fall within that concept. As the 1967 referendum was not submitted to the
electors to change the meaning regarding any race or all races not being Aboriginal then it must
be considered that it was never intended to be changed. As such the amendment of ss51(xxvi)
regarding Aboriginals must be deemed that it only could be used against Aboriginals and not in
their favour.
HANSARD 22-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
50
55
Mr. ISAACS: If the hon. gentleman can show me that I am wrong I shall be pleased to alter my opinion. In
this final vote, each State is taken separately. Tasmania is taken by itself, and so is Victoria, New South
Wales, Western Australia, and South Australia. Supposing there are only five States in the Federation and
South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are against a certain law, no matter how great the voting
power of the two larger States which support the Bill it cannot be carried into law. You have here the same
principle of protection as is provided in the Houses of the Legislature. What could be fairer to smaller States?
If there is not a majority of the States voting for the law, then there is an end of the matter. If, however, there
p5
26-2-2015
6
should be a majority of the States in favor of it, then you have of course to give equal protection to the larger
population. Having your majority of, the States and a majority of the population there is no reason whatever
why the law should not pass. It is also provided that:
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Such vote shall be taken in each State separately, and if the proposed law is affirmed by a majority of States
containing also a majority of the population of the Commonwealth, it shall be presented to the GovernorGeneral for the Royal assent, as if it had been duty passed by both Houses of Parliament, and on receiving the
Royal assent it shall become law. If not affirmed as aforesaid, the proposed law shall not become law,
and shall not be again proposed for a period of at least three years.
END QUOTE
As such, a referendum that fails cannot be remitted to the electors within a 3 year period.
In constitutional terms a Bill that is twice rejected or failed to pass through both Houses of
Parliament is deemed to have been rejected. If a bill is submitted to the Senate and the Senate
adjourn the Bill until another session that year or a following year then constitutionally the bill is
deemed to have failed. It may be argued that a referendum that was proposed but was not
proceeded with as like a Bill not voted upon may have been deemed to have failed. However, it
must be understood that a referendum defeated is not an obstacle to re-introduce the same
amendment at a later time provided the 3 year period has been passed. As such, a referendum
could be held time and time again for the same proposed amendment as long as the intervals are
not less than 3 years.
A failure of a referendum is not a prohibition, as it simply was that the referendum was
vetoed at that time. For example the referendum to have municipal/shire councils recognised in
the constitution may have failed but is not a prohibition against municipal/shire councils, other
that it cannot pretend n or can be held to be a level of government.
The constitution only allows for 3 levels of government. This is the British Parliament combined
with the European Union laws. Then the Federal and State government which are both on even
keel as to their powers of legislation within their respective constitutional provisions. However,
when there is a clash in legislative provisions where the states have legislated in a field that
incidentally can be covered by the commonwealth then the Commonwealth legislation prevails.
For example the Commonwealth in 2009 legislated that pensions and other welfare payments
were to be subjected to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). And clearly the Commonwealths intend
was to make sure that pensions and other welfare payments would not be eroded by the CPI, this
them placed the legal burden upon the States/Territories that it must not increase its charges
above the CPI for pensioners and other welfare recipients. We find however that the Banyule
City Council disregard this by having increased their unconstitutional rates by a whopping 7.1%.
As such not only is it acting unconstitutionally in raising rates (land taxes) but also disregard the
CPI limit of increases.
When one considers any clause/word or provision in the constitution then one must always
interpret it as to the plain reading.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think
correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances
which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States
Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who
were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and
probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions
which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and
reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way
applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should
be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it
which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this
p6
26-2-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by
the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to
see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think I can rule this proposed amendment out of order. Every clause, or nearly
every clause, in a Bill in some way qualifies the preceding clauses. They extend the operation of those
clauses, and, in some instances they limit the operation of the clauses. This is not a distinct negative, and I
think it would be unduly curtailing the power of the committee to arrive at such a conclusion as they may
think fit if I ruled this out of order.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
45
50

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE
55
Therefore, the usage of civil conscription must be read as intended by the Framers of the
Constitution. This basically is that people who benefit from society have to contribute to society.
People who seek a government to protect their constitutional rights must be prepared to put an
effort in it when the country needs to be defended to maintain those rights against any alien
attack. I hold that therefore it is embedded in the constitution that citizens must be entitled to
carry weapons for self-defence, as not to provide or allow this means citizens have no way of
defending (as intended by the Framers of the Constitution) any armed invasion when needed.
p7
26-2-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
I have expressed that despite having been a sharp shooter in the Royal Dutch Army I in principle
oppose the use of weapons as to me they are for killing purposes, however, I am well aware that
despite my opposition to the death penalty, in need I could use my skills to kill and opponent
where my duty requires to do so. Having served as was then known as the Iron Curtain (as part of
NATO) in Germany I am too well aware that then too such need may have arisen. And in fact
while residing with a German family who had sons my age we did talk about this issue that we
may very well one day be on opposite sides and would have no choice but to seek to eliminate
the other even so we personally had nothing against each other, because we were serving in
opposing armies.
.
The medical profession is as like most other professions they are working for an in come to feed
their family, allow them to enjoy their kind of lifestyle and pay their mortgages, etc. As such, one
cannot expect that merely because the Commonwealth sought to amend the constitution then
somehow they could be placed in civil conscription while other professions would not. Hence
the specific exclusion for this.
Constitutionally however there is nothing wrong with the Commonwealth of Australia to
reintroduce civil conscription for armed services. It doesnt mean that I would support or
object to such civil conscription because my experiences were that I saw so to say fine
upstanding young man entering the armed forces and ending up like creeps and even criminals
and I saw those who had a history of violence, criminal activities, etc, turning out to so to say
becoming model soldiers. It just depends upon the environment each person is placed and how
fellow soldiers are and in particular how their superiors are dealing with them.
When I had to train soldiers I held it important to show respect to them and not bully them. I
would explain to them what was planned this so in the event something was to happen to me
each knew their task and the combined goal. I used to sit in the soldiers quarters letting them
show me their ordinary day job such as being an engineer, etc. I found that because I showed
respect to them they so in turn showed me respect. And that very often can made the difference
between a soldier enjoying for so far this is possible conscription or not.
How our constitution has been twisted and perverted may be underlines who the Government
goes on about the constitution, that is if it suits their purposes, but otherwise they blatantly
disregard it. A clear example is shown regarding the position of the Governor-General as set out
below. Politicians effectively have r place d themselves above the rule of law (the constitution)
and that is why we need an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN (Dont forget the hyphens!), a
constitutional council that advises the Government(s), the People, the Parliament(s) and the
Courts.
It also indicates that Sir George Grey made clear that a Governor-General ought to be considered
to be elected by the People. As such not some appointment of the Government of the Day of the
Australian Government such as I view to appoint Peter Cosgrove to silence him about Iraq and
prevent him to provide for a ROYAL COMMISSION into the mass murder, etc, in Iraq. As
indicated below a Governor-General can only be appointed/commissioned by the Crown, in this
case Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and not by a Chief Justice of the High
Court of Australia.
HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: At all events, I would ask hon. members to pause before they determine upon
asking the Queen to surrender all her prerogatives in Australia. For my part, I believe that all the
prerogatives of the Crown exist in the governor-general as far as they relate to Australia. I never
entertained any doubt upon the subject at all-that is so far as they can be exercised in the commonwealth.
END QUOTE
p8
26-2-2015
9
Not even Her Majesty could circumvent the constitution and as such it is irrelevant if Her
Majesty were to have given ROYAL ASSENT to laws that may change it because the
constitution is the will of the People and can only be amended by way of referendum, not by
unelected judges as they may please to do by their contemporary views.
QUOTE
Mr. HOLDER: We want something which shall have two parts, which shall be democratic in the fact that
it is based on the people's will, and that in it every personal unit of the population shall be recognised and his
individuality preserved, and that, on the other hand, shall be a true Federation, in that each State unit shall
also have its individuality preserved and its independence assured. I do not think we can afford to
dispense with either of these two things. We cannot afford to dispense with the guarantee of the personal
individual rights of every citizen of the Commonwealth, nor, on the other hand, can we afford to dispense
with the individual or separate rights or interests of each of the separate States-if my hon. friend Mr.
O'Connor prefers that term. We cannot neglect to provide for their due recognition. The next principle I shall
lay down is this: That in dealing with this federal authority we should confer on it no powers which it
cannot exercise more wisely and well and effectively than the States can exercise those powers. I would
even go a step further, and lay down as the principle which should govern our conduct: To the States all that
is local and relating to one State, to the Federal authority all that is national and inter-State. I wonder
whether I can secure the absolute adherence, no matter where it may lead us, of a majority of this Convention
to that principle: To the State everything that is local and relating to one State, to the Federal power
everything that is national and of inter-State importance. I pass from these two general principles to a
discussion of the only other preliminary I shall have to touch, and that is the question of the appointment of
the representative of the British Crown in the person of the Governor-General. I do not take it that the words
of the Enabling Act requiring us to frame a Constitution for a Federation "under the Crown" bind us in the
matter of whether or not we shall elect our own Governor-General, because I take it that the legal bonds
which bind us to the mother-country, to the great British Empire, are chiefly, first the right of veto which
the Imperial authorities have over any Acts our local Legislature may pass, and which the Federal Legislature
may pass, and next the right of the Imperial Legislature at any time to pass legislation which may affect us, or
which may revoke any legislation affecting us. These are the great legal bonds which bind us to the British
Empire. But above all this, the greater and wider, and, to my mind, much more important [start page 145]
bonds than the legal bonds are those of kinship, of language, and of sympathy that must always bind us to the
motherland. The mere appointment by the Crown of the Governor-General is not a real bond. That this is so is
recognised to-day in that we have presiding, now and again, in the position of Acting-Governor of one or
other of these colonies, gentlemen who so preside by virtue of their position upon the legal bench. In the
appointment of the Governor we have only one link, and that link is again and again missing when gentlemen,
owing to their legal position, temporarily occupy the office.
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mr. SYMON: By vice-regal appointment.
40
45
50
Mr. HOLDER: Yes, of course; the Commission from Her Majesty lies dormant until it is actually called
into existence by the absence of the Governor; but we can at this moment, if the necessity arises, appoint a
new occupant to the Supreme Court Bench, and that would qualify him to fill the office of Acting-Governor if
need required it. Therefore I think it is clear that to that extent it lessens the argument that the main link that
binds us to the mother-country is the appointment of the Governor, and shows that it is an argument which
has not half so much weight as some of the speakers would have us believe. But I take a very strong position
against the election of the Governor-General by the Federation, not because I believe it would mean losing a
link which binds us to England, but that we should have a man of such power and authority, derived directly
from the people, that he would certainly clash with the other powers and authorities we propose to set
up under this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
55

QUOTE Mr. LYNE:
First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the Federal
Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of this community to take
what I may term the first step towards a severance from the mother-country, but the first step would
be in the election of the Governor-General instead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home
Government. It is but a small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated
Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home Government; and
p9
26-2-2015
10
I should like to know what power that Government would have over any Governor-General elected in
the manner desired.
END QUOTE
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

QUOTE
Sir GEORGE GREY: If that is not done, of course we act against experience. I hear hon. gentlemen say
"No"; but they must recollect that it was foreseen that dire results would follow from the adoption of another
system, and that those dire results did follow, and, with that [start page 138] example before us, it appears
very doubtful if we ought not, pursuing the course of wisdom, to take steps which will prevent a repetition of
the disasters which took place in the United States. Some other plan of doing it may be devised; but the
object should be attained in some way or other without subjecting ourselves to the chances of future
great disaster. I need not go at length into the different subjects which I think should be submitted to the
power of the general assembly or the congress. Those can be easily adjusted, I think, probably without any
great dissension amongst ourselves. I believe that no trouble at all will arise upon that head; but it will be
essentially necessary that the point should be considered with very great care. Now, it may be said, perhaps,
that in England they are little prepared to consider this subject for us, if it is to be carried out by act of
parliament; but I should tell hon. gentlemen that they little know the care which British statesmen have in
some instances bestowed upon the consideration of the affairs of these colonies. For instance, we had the
Premier of Great Britain, the Marquis of Salisbury, when a younger son of the late Marquis, out in New
Zealand, studying our constitution there with the greatest care-not the one that was then perfected, but the one
which it was thought would be bestowed upon New Zealand. He lived with me for several months, and the
business that had been transacted in the day was gone through by him and myself in the evenings that we
spent together. Every matter was discussed, the reasons for each step taken were examined, arguments were
held upon both sides, and he devoted his mind as carefully to a study of these questions as if he had been a
New Zealander, and the member of the Government who had to consider what was best to be done for the
country. And his was not a solitary instance in that respect. Other British statesmen have been out here
directing their attention to these very questions. Only recently you have had here a young man, now a
member of the House of Peers, who spent at least one year and a half studying every question connected with
New Zealand,-who then came on to Australia, and visited every one of these colonies, and devoted
considerable care and attention to their exact position, the state of their legislation, and all that they had
acquired; and who, then, went on to the United States and Canada, and repeated the same thing there, and,
when perfectly educated upon all these points, returned home to take his seat in the House of Peers, and to
stand the friend of these communities whenever difficult questions arose. Now, with men of that kind to take
our part, I think there is great safety for us in reference to the steps which the British Parliament will take in
regard to our requests. And that brings me to another point which, I fear, will give rise to some
difference of opinion in this great assembly, and in which I may not carry people with me; but I believe
in my own mind that it is essential to you that every one of your officers should be elected by the people
of this country. Even in the case of your governor-general I believe the people ought to have the right
of choosing who that man shall be. Let them choose him from England if they please; let them choose
him from any part of the world, I would almost say, if they pleased. They will choose well, they will
choose wisely, and no nation can be perfect-unless an imperial nation-a young offset, as we should be, of an
imperial nation, we should not be perfect, unless the people had every office open to their ambition, and
unless it were known that the really great and good men of the country could rise to the highest position, and
exercise the highest duties in it. Why, if as is the doctrine at the present time, and I admit, that it has been
successfully ex- [start page 139] ercised-very successfully exercised in regard to theme colonies-if the
doctrine is that as far as possible the sons of peers should be sent out here to be educated as to the affairs of
the colonies in order that they may act wisely in the legislative body at home-I say that if such an education is
necessary and of great advantage then to shut out our own people from an education of the kind, and to say
that no man in Australia shall have an advantage of the sort is an act of absolute cruelty to the people of
Australia-it is to cramp their energies, to deprive them of the highest education of all, and it is an act of which
we ought not to be guilty towards our fellow-countrymen. Then I would say to this assembly, do not be led
away by the idea that the nomination of governor is the only tie that binds us to Great Britain. If we
send home a great portion of our laws for the Queen's assent is not that to bind us to Great Britain in
the most solemn way? Is not that to say that the sovereign of Great Britain is as absolutely at member
of our legislature here as she is of the legislature at home? Her representative, who would be chosen by
the people, would in her name open and close the parliaments and perform all those functions, but he
would be a man chosen by ourselves, and our own people would be educated in the highest possible
manner to discharge their duty to their country. For it is not only the man who is fortunate enough to
attain the highest position who will educate himself to the greatest point that he can, but every one who aimed
at the office would be endeavouring to prepare himself for it-numbers of men would be educated to a point to
p10
26-2-2015
11
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
which they never would otherwise be educated unless you opened such objects to their ambition. If it were
thought necessary to bind us still further to Great Britain I do not see why we, instead of having agentsgeneral, should not have members of the Privy Council at home. I do not at all know why we should not send
home an officer who would conduct our business with the Queen directly, exactly as the Secretary of State
for Ireland conducts the business of Ireland with the Queen, or as that officer in the House of Commons who
really manages Scotch affairs, and who manages them as if he were a secretary of state, conducts the business
of Scotland. I believe it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the colonies, that such an officer
should reside in England instead of having agents-general there, because he would become personally known
to his sovereign, and to the leading men in England, and friendships would be formed and an education given
from time to time as these men were changed. I apprehend that they would probably only fill the office for
two or three years. There would be a constant change, and I believe that in that way a large proportion of your
population would be again educated in the best possible manner. These must seem almost too daring
speculations; but, in point of fact, we are marching on to an altogether new epoch, to new times, and
the very essence of the constitution must be this: I heard one hon. gentleman here state that we must
remember that we are legislating for the future; and I agree with him if he meant that we are
legislating in such a manner as to enable the future to legislate for itself-that it is our object that
freedom in every respect shall be given, so that as each generation comes on they shall say, "Blessed be
those ancestors of ours who have left us this freedom, so that nothing can take place-no changes in the
state of the world-but we possess all powers to define the measures most necessary to bring peace and
tranquillity at every epoch it comes on." That is the real duty which we should aim to fulfil; and it is
only by allowing the people to speak, and at all times to declare [start page 140] their views and their
wishes, and to have them carefully considered, that we can insure peace, tranquillity, and prosperity to
each country in each successive epoch of time as it arrives. Now, having given these general views upon
your general assembly, I need go no further. It does not much matter in what kind of way on the first occasion
you allow elections to take place, if the people have the power of altering that whenever they like. All these
things become quite minor questions if you just hold in view these several matters, that the states-each stateshall have the power of modifying its form of government whenever it likes; that, for instance, neither the
states nor the general body is to be told that "you must conduct your form of government according to the
principles of what they call a responsible ministry." Why should that be told to them? Why not let them
conduct their form of government precisely as each age chooses? Who can tell what political inventions are
yet to be made? Why, the principle of representation, as we enjoy it, is, comparatively speaking, a modern
discovery, and the principle of federation has not developed yet. We are the people for the first time to give it
a new form, if we please. We can develop it to a higher point than it has ever been raised to yet. It is an
invention; but, as is the case with electricity, day by day better modes will be found for administering it-better
means for making it useful to men. We now, its I say, take one step, and in taking that step let us open the
road to all future steps. Let that be our care-to lead on, let us march into the wide track of improving all these
institutions; let us lead on, and you will find that grateful nations will follow, and we shall discover that we
had known nothing, although we now think we know so much-so great will be the changes which will occur,
so great will be the invention which will be made. Then there is one other thing that lies very near my mind.
Let us remember this. In my youth it was said that men of different religious faiths could not sit in the
same legislature together, and they were excluded-Jews, Catholics, Nonconformists-nobody it was
thought but members of the Church of England could form a legislative body that was of any use at all.
To leaven them with other material was to spoil the whole thing. But it was found that that was a great
mistake; that men of different religious faiths could sit side by side in the same legislature; that talent
and ability call be drawn forth from any religious opinions whatever. The nation has progressed more
than ever it has done before in so short a period of time; and its happiness and tranquillity are greater. Now, I
think we should establish this principle in reference to federation. Let us say that if the English-speaking
people choose to federate in one great body we shall not ask what that form of government is. In the same
body could sit men who hail from a republic, and men who hail from a monarchy. Take the case of South
Africa, where there are two republics. We might have federation in a wonderful degree if that rule were laid
down, and surely if seven or eight states there met together to consult for the common good of South Africa,
and to make a law which would be beneficial to the whole of them, it could matter very little whether the
representatives of two states came from republics, instead of from a monarchy as in the case of the other
states. Equally well can they advise upon that which is good for the whole-equally well can they care for
their fellow-countrymen, speaking the same language, with laws identical in all respects-equally well
can they care for them, whether the head of the government is called a president, or whether, as in our
case, we rejoice to [start page 141] live under so great and good a Queen. What difference can it make?
We should be the first to lead on in that great improvement, and to say this: "Now, the federation of all
English-speaking people may take place; the United States can settle in with us; all men speaking the
common tongue can meet to debate upon what is necessary for the common benefit." I think hon. gentleman
will feel, however crude those doctrines may be, that there is much in them. Remember this: that America
p11
26-2-2015
12
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
must have a great deal to say in regard to the Pacific Ocean. The last speaker alluded very kindly to the
idea that was entertained years ago of federating with all the islands of the South Pacific, and
arrangements were made by which that might be carried out. But what was the feeling in England?
Directly it was known that we thought of common customs duties for all the islands -all the islands, as well as
these larger places-the moment that was thought of, and it was seen that it afforded the means of paying
one or two European officers for the purpose of guiding and directing the natives in the line of duty
which they should follow, the British Government became alarmed, and there was a peremptory order sent
out which prevented that plan being continued. It was finished at once. Well, not only was that the case, but
so strong was the desire then to break up the empire-and this is a good illustration of the kind of
changes that you may have to meet, changes of human thought-that it was determined, if possible, to
get rid of the outlying dependencies, and to reduce the dominions of Great Britain. The Orange River
sovereignty was first thrown off. Then it was contemplated to throw other places off, and force them to
become republics. It was said that England was too large; that what you wanted was a nation-not thinking of
all these distant places-with their minds fixed upon manufactures and commerce, manufacturing for the
world; it was sufficient to breed up in your great cities a population in the last depths of misery, but always
ready to rush into manufactures at the lowest rate of wages whenever an improvement of trade took place. It
was said that Britain should confine herself to her manufactures, and to her own immediate territories, and
leave the rest of the world to itself. But, what thought other people, and what thought England? Let me just
give one illustration of this. I was arranging for the federation of all South Africa-triumphantly
arranging it-certainly all the states, I believe, but one would have joined, and that one would almost
immediately afterwards have probably come in-but when it was heard of, the government then in
power, and the opposition at home, were alike filled with dread at such a federation as was
contemplated. It was said that the man who contemplated that was a dangerous man, and he must be
got rid of, and without a moment's warning I was dismissed from office as Governor and High
Commissioner of the Cape. Well, there was one person in the realm who thought differently. Afterwards,
within a few days, the ministry were put out in consequence of a quarrel with Lord Palmerston-I think it was
within twelve days-and the first thing that was said to the new ministry was, "That man is right; you will yet
long to do what he could have done, and you will be sorry that it was not done; reinstate him in his position."
It was the Queen who spoke, and what was her feeling towards her people at large? As the Prince Consort
explained the matter to myself, they felt the necessity of openings for the poor, for the adventurous. They
thought no wrongful efforts should ever be made to extend an empire, that, so long as the people of Great
Britain, urged by their indomitable energy, kept pushing [start page 142] on themselves, winning new races,
winning new countries to join the great confederation of English people, so long would it be wrong for the
sovereign to injure her people by saying they should not go to these new homes, they should not open these
new places for commerce, that they must remain shut up in a small and continually decreasing empire at
home, as it would have been, if the policy had been acted upon of striking off place after place. Well, I
maintain that the hearts which conceived that conception-that love for the English race-represented the
true feeling of the nation; and experience has shown that such was the case. Here we are in New
Zealand in spite of the government of the day. They tried to stop the foundation of the colony. There
they are at the Cape of Good Hope, spreading over the whole of the country, although the earlier settlers were
punished if they attempted to pass the Orange River. No further spread of territory there was to be allowed.
And now you have Great Britain grasping immense territories in Africa, probably going even beyond her
strength-such has been the change of public opinion upon this subject. I ask you, therefore, whether we, in
providing for the spread of the empire in the Pacific, whether we, in providing for all English-speaking races
coming into the one great confederation, shall not equally now be doing our duty to the future, as I believe
that our noble Queen, and those who thought with her-there were really but few-thought rightly, thought well
when they determined that the energies of the British race should spread exactly as their instincts moved
them, and, provided they committed no wrong upon others, should be allowed to go in and replenish and fill
up all the waste places of the earth. These are the points which appear to me so essentially necessary for our
guidance-this policy of letting all English speaking people into the confederation, of not attempting to fetter
our posterity by any peculiar laws, of simply giving them power to enable them to determine what laws they
would live under themselves. Holding those two main points in view we should, I think, accomplish all we
could possibly desire. With reference to the subject of defence I do not like to say much. I am very
adverse to seeing a large force raised in this country; I am very adverse to seeing a military spirit
created, which should long for war. I would rather see a small-a very small-force, sufficient for all
purposes which can possibly occur, because I do not believe if we enter into this confederation that we
shall ever be molested. Let me state one point. There is intense jealousy amongst the European nations
themselves. At one time it was thought that it was better to set up the old world in this new world. The whole
efforts of people went to form off-shoots of British societies, as they said. Why here, even in this colony of
New South Wales, when you were offered free and liberal institutions, some of your first men wanted to set
up peerages. The papers and documents will show that, I know that in New Zealand, in the minds of many
p12
26-2-2015
13
10
15
20
25
men, similar thoughts were entertained. A nobility was to be set up there, in the south of New Zealand, just as
much as it was at home in England; but in spite of all that could be done, this one feeling always pervaded
these new countries, that they would have nothing whatever to do with those institutions of the old world; and
I say that if once you get up great military bodies here, the whole world will, by degrees, become a series of
standing camps, as it is in Europe at the present day. Now, look how we stand. From the Atlantic, on the one
side, back again to the same ocean really, I may say, upon the other side, there lies a great space in the world
in which there is no standing army at the present day, no [start page 143] preparation made for military
attacks, for military defence-the United States-with, I believe, 12,000 men to keep the Indian population
down, and the whole is at peace and repose; her young men are not drawn into conscriptions, not prepared
to be fit victims for slaughter, not certain to be slaughtered in some few years' time in some obscure
corner or other, but all devoting their energies to the development of the country, marrying, becoming
famers, or filling different trades and professions, not shut up in barracks, excluded from knowing what the
affection of a wife and the love of children really is. Here, all are totally different, and for heaven's sake let us
keep in our present position, and not go off into the mania which has made Europe the nations of standing
camps which it is. I hope that that is one thing we shall hold in view-in fact, one of the main things almost
before every other. I will not detain hon. gentlemen longer. I have given what I believe to be an outline of a
proper plan of proceeding. I will do my best to bring the points forward in Committee, as these questions
arise. I entertain, in my own mind, a confident belief of this: that what I have asked for, whether it is done
now or not, will be done in Australasia-I will not say in my lifetime, although I have seen great changes-but I
believe it will be done in Australasia in a very short period of time. If it is done I have a confident belief,
founded upon a long experience, that then a nation, educated in public schools first, then educated in public
life afterwards in the world, so that the thought and care of their fellow-men is continually before their mindsI believe that such a nation will attain to higher prosperity than any other people have yet attained, because in
the United States still are many of those things wanting in that degree of perfection in which we may have
them here; and from the full exercise of the faculties of self-government, and of the management of the
nation, will certainly spring prosperity and happiness of a kind hitherto unknown.
END QUOTE
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

QUOTE
Mr. DIBBS: I think, in a resolution in which we are asked to affirm the principles upon which the
constitution shall be constructed, that the word "powers" in connection with the expression, "powers and
privileges and territorial rights," might be omitted altogether. I dread dealing with the expression "territorial
rights," as it may imply the taking from the people of New South Wales that territory which lies in such close
contiguity to other and powerful states, and which we may say in all charity, and in the mildest possible form,
they possibly covet. I have no doubt South Australia would like an adjustment of territorial boundary in order
to take in Broken Hill. We have heard-and the idea comes from the preaching of the Victorian press and
Victorian statesmen-that an equal adjustment of territorial rights might be taken to mean [start page 184] the
annexation of Riverina to Victoria, and equally the modest colony of Queensland, on our north, might find
that their capital, Brisbane, might be strengthened to a large extent by a certain portion of the territory of New
South Wales down to the Clarence River being merged into Southern Queensland. These are the questions
which come before the minds of the people of New South Wales, and upon which this Convention will
have to be perfectly clear. There must be no surrender of territorial rights in any shape or form, save
in connection with the reconstruction of states in the future, or in connection with the construction of
new states. Such division or surrender for the creation of new states should only be by the will and
consent of a two-thirds majority of the people. Resolutions 2 and 3 deal with the question of trade
intercourse, and follow, as a matter of course, upon the creation of a federation. There can be no
federation of these colonies, no federal form of government, unless there is unrestricted free-trade throughout
the whole of the colonies. That goes without saying; and the power vested in the federal government of
imposing outside customs duties is also natural and right enough. The two resolutions, taken together, mean,
by inference, that there shall be unrestricted free-trade between the various parties to the federal government
compact, but there must be protection against the outside world. We now come to a most dangerous point in
connection with the proceedings of this Convention. I hope that the 4th resolution, dealing with the question
of military and naval defence, will receive the most anxious consideration of the delegates. I hope that the
words which fell last evening from the lips of the hon. member, Sir George Grey-words which bear the
weight of great experience-will be taken to heart by those who may form the federal government. The
question of creating a standing army is one which, to my mind, is almost more repulsive than the
question of readjustment of territorial boundaries. It means the existence in our midst of a certain
number of idle men-men sharpening their knives and their swords for the first fitting opportunity of
fleshing them on the people of their own country, because we have no other enemies. We, in Australiafederated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the whole-have no enemies
p13
26-2-2015
14
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
within our borders; we have no Indians to dispute with us the possession of the soil; we have no powerful
Maori race, to fight, as was once the case in New Zealand, for the territory the right to which belonged to the
Maoris themselves. We have no enemies within, and the only thing we have to fear is the possibility of
any assault on the mother country by her enemies from without, unless indeed the creation of a
standing army proves a menace to the people of Australia by the existence of an armed force for
unlawful purposes. This question of the creation of a military force is one of the blots upon these
resolutions. We want no military force within New South Wales. All we want to do is to make every man
who is either a native of the soil, or one of ourselves by reason of his taking up his residence amongst
us, prepare to resist possible invasion from without. Who are our enemies? Who are our enemies but the
enemies of England, and they, so long as we remain under the Crown, will be dealt with by an outer
barrier, an outer bulwark in the defence of Australia, in the shape of the navy of Old England. But we
have no enemies within, and there is no necessity to fasten the curse of a standing army upon us. As was
pointed out by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, yesterday, in his interesting speech, we have no necessity
to keep a large standing army at a large cost to the people of the country, [start page 185] when we have no
enemies with whom they will have to fight. Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of
order within. In the event of invasion from without, so long as we remain under the Crown, our enemies,
being the enemies of England, will be dealt with before ever an attempt is made to invade these shores; and
when the day of invasion comes the people of this country will rise as one man to defend their hearths and
homes from any possible aggressor. I look upon the question of the creation of a military power within a
territory under the Crown as a menace to the people who are to continue as British subjects. We have been
sent here by our various parliaments to frame a constitution under the Crown-under the Crown, bear in mind.
That is the idea which has been put forward in every speech that has been made. I presume, then, that the
members of the Convention are prepared at once to give the go-by altogether to the idea of imperial
federation. So long as we remain in our present position as individual colonies, we are imperially
federated, and we can be imperially federated in no stronger manner than in connection with our
relation to the mother country. We are as much imperially federated as the people living in the cities of
London, Liverpool, Manchester, or other large centres of population. We are a portion of the British
Crown, joined together by the most solemn ties and obligations; and we have to bear the brunt of any
misfortune which may fall upon us in connection with any attack upon our shores by reason of our
enemies being the common enemies of England. We have already made certain provision, partially of a
federal character, to assist the Imperial Government in the protection of our shores from without; but let us
set our faces as a young nation-if I may use the word "nation" in advance-against standing armies; let us set
our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism. We are met here
under the Crown, and I must say that, as one possessing a slight tinge of republican notions, as one who
sees that the future of Australia is to be what was prophesied of it fifty years ago, by poets who have
written of what the future of Australia is to be-having a certain tinge of republicanism in my nature,
the result naturally of my being a descendant of an Englishman, I was surprised to find a gentleman
occupying a position under the Crown proposing what 100 years ago would have been simply regarded
as high treason. Why, the other day the hon. member, Mr. Munro, made a proposal with regard to one phase
of the question which made me ejaculate, "One strand of the painter has gone."
END QUOTE
QUOTE
45
50
55
60
Mr. PLAYFORD: What power has the Crown now?

Mr. DIBBS: If the Crown has no power now, what does the hon. member propose to take away? The
Crown has the power of vetoing our bills, and showed its power last year when it vetoed our Divorce Bill.
We are gradually cutting that "crimson thread of kinship"-the words have become historical-we are gradually
whittling away the powers of the Crown and creating for the future of Australia what the hon. member, Mr.
Playford, is, perhaps, anxious to create, namely, the republic of the united states of Australia. That is, I
have no doubt, what we are coming to. Without poaching from the unprotected preserves of my hon. friend,
Captain Russell, who rather usurped the position which hitherto I have held in this chamber, of being the only
legitimate quoter of the sacred book, I think really that, after all, "out of the fulness of the heart the mouth
speaketh." Out of the fullness of the heart of republicanism came the proposal to subvert the authority
and dignity of the Crown, to cut the last link of connection with the Crown, and to establish the
republic of Australia. That is what we are coming to, and it is the inevitable destiny of the people of this
great country. When England sent her pioneers to subdue the wilds of Australia, to civilise them and to make
"the desert rejoice and blossom as the rose"-when she planted her colonies in this country she planted them
with that germ and spirit of independence which must, as time rolls on, develop into the establishment of a
great republic. The cubs of the lion will, in due time, play the lion's part; and I was intensely amused to
p14
26-2-2015
15
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
find that that young cub, South Australia, represented by my hon. friend, Mr. Play- [start page 187]
ford, has solved the whole question of converting the authority of the Crown into a myth. What we are
doing to-day is preparing step by step for that grand future which is to come; and when that day arrives, it
will be not to the discredit nor to the injury of England, but for England's greater strength and security, when
she in the southern seas-separated as we are by such a vast expanse-shall have created, as foreshadowed by
the hon. member, Mr. Playford, not a dependency, but a nation of her own people, free and independent
of the Crown. That is the boldest way in which to put the question. It was barely touched on before, but it
was the honest conviction of the hon. member, Mr. Playford, and the hon. member, Sir George Grey, who
pointed out that the people of this country would no longer, especially as time rolls on and develops still
further the pluck and independence of the people, remain as they are; but that in the future this country must
become a nation of itself, in alliance with the old country. Will any of us here say that it was to the loss of
England that America separated from the control of the parent state, or that that event was not in the interest
of humanity, was not for the benefit of the human race? And will anybody tell me that it will be against the
interest of humanity, of the British race, or of England herself, that in due time these colonies shall
become one great, united Australia, as friends and allies of the motherland? That is our future, and
what we are doing here step by step to-day is laying the foundation of the inevitable which is to come.
We talk about making a constitution which is to last fifty or a hundred years. Where shall we be in fifty or a
hundred years? I do not suppose that I shall see my hon. friend, Sir John Bray, fifty years hence sitting
in that corner; he might be elevated to the president's chair; or be president of the republic itself. But
we are laying the foundation, and step by step are following in the lines of a great nation, and in due time we
shall become what America has become, a separate, free, and independent state. That is what we are
gradually doing. We may be to a certain extent working in fog and darkness; but that will be the outcome of
the whole question-of all our arguments, of all our debates, of all the thinking of the people of this country. I
am as much in touch with the native-born population of Australia as is any man in the country; and I feel that
I express their sentiments when I say that from the germ of liberty implanted within us, by our forefathers
spring the aspirations which will forbid us to remain bound in alliance except as one friendly nation with
another, always with that special respect that should be paid to the people, of the fatherland. I am afraid that I
have wearied hon. members as far as I have gone; but it appears to me that before going again over a little bit
of the ground, I have said sufficient to show that I shall oppose the military spirit, both inside this Convention
and outside the walls of this chamber. Whenever I have the opportunity I will do my utmost to cut down the
military spirit and to instil into the people of this land a love of their homes, and also the necessity of
defending them in the only legitimate manner. As the, the hon. member, Sir George Grey, said, either
yesterday or in his speech the other day at the Town Hall, we should educate our people up to all of this, and
especially in New South Wales, where we are giving the people of the country practically a free educationand it should be common to all Australia-we should instil into the minds of our children the necessity for
training, and, as a quid pro quo for that free education, we should demand from them a certain amount of
proficiency in the use of arms, which of itself would lay the basis of a military organisation for the purposes
[start page 188] of defence only.
END QUOTE
As I always point out, you need to understand and comprehend what the Framers of the
Constitution were about and understand/comprehend their reasoning. It is on that platform that
you then consider the meanings of words as used in their time, and any amendment by
referendum must be interpreted likewise unless the referendum specifically indicates otherwise.
I am aware that the High Court of Australia so to say to twist and infringement upon the
constitution uses at times Authorities of other countries in blatant violation to the intentions of
the Framers of the Constitution. This cannot be accepted. Foreign Authorities are all right to be
uses as long as they are not contradictive to the legal principles embedded by the Framers of the
Constitution into our constitution.
Vaccination cannot be deemed to be a forced conscription as the Commonwealth has no
legislative power for this.
55
60
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON:
I hope that I am at any rate acting in the spirit in which we all labour together, and that the result of our
labour will be to found a state of high and august aims, working by the eternal principles of justice and not to
the music of bullets, and affording an example of freedom, political morality, and just action to the
individual, the state and the nation which will one day be the envy of the world.
p15
26-2-2015
16
END QUOTE
QUOTE
10
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
15
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
20
25
30
35
Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and
indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the
theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what
we can to provide against it.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I want if I can to recommend the Commonwealth Bill and get it carried. But
why should we be faced with this difficulty? You have put in the preamble a religious recital which is not in
the Constitution of the United States of America, but you have not put in the safeguard against religious
intolerance which they have there. I ask honorable members how I shall face that difficulty? There is a grave
suspicion evidenced by what I said that there were 36,000 distinct signatures upon this very point. I do not
think it is too much for me to say that we ought to reassure those persons. They may be wrong. It may be
right, as my friend (Mr. Barton) says, that there is no power by implication in the Commonwealth to pass this
law. It may be right as he says, that the Commonwealth ought to have the power. But I only say that it is a
state matter, and it should be left to the states. My honorable friend (Mr. Fraser), with all respect to him,
shows the current ignorance on this matter because he will not understand that the state, if my proposal is
carried, will have the same power as it has now to stop any theatrical performances on Sunday.
END QUOTE
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
40
"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious
tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
END QUOTE
45
50

QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to
the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to
make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
In my view compulsory vaccination could be perceived as a social power to which the

Commonwealth lacks any legislative powers to enforce.
Gerrit
END QUOTE conscription article
55
p16
26-2-2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
17
Perhaps because I never charged any fees, in fact at one stage had at my own cost an 1800
number for them to ring me, they trusted me more than those who were only out to earn a buck.
Whatever it was to my knowledge no one who I was actually dealing with went ahead with
suicide/murder. Michael Alderton who was imprisoned was prevented to have contact me with
after having been sentenced and subsequently so it was alleged committed suicide in prison.
This was a man who desperately wanted to see his children but was prevented doing so. His
estranged wife not turning up for counselling session, and then when in 1994 he drove a motor
vehicle through the glass windows of the building at 570 Bourke Street Melbourne where the
family Court of Australia at the time was located, well he was charged with criminal damage. I
understood from Michael that he went to the car and next he knew was that police were there
with weapons aimed at him and the car in the window. As such, it appeared to me he had so to
say no mens rea wanting to cause damage. Remarkable his ex-wife that day had no problem to
be in court even so earlier not being able to attend to counselling (regarding access) in the same
building. I understood from his lawyer that Michael would plea guilty, to avoid further term of
imprisonment, whereas if he pleaded not guilty and was found guilty he might be sentenced to 6
months imprisonment,. Michael had however earlier indicated to me he would plea not guilty. In
the end he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, and I understood he
refused then to talk to the lawyer for having deceived him.
What we had here was a mother engaging in a conduct to prevent access without the court taking
any action against her, as I understood had been the modus operandi. And you wonder why men
in such situation at times lose their cool?
It seems to me that unless you fix the basic issues you will not combat a spread of terror.
While the mother of Luke was apparently made Australian of the Year, etc, but for what I
wonder? Didnt she violate the intervention order that resulted to the death of Luke? One has to
ask would Luke still be alive today had she kept to the terms of the intervention order? And this I
have become aware often women did to get an intervention order as a weapon against a father so
he either would be dictated by the mother or the Intervention Order would be used against him.
It is absurd how many intervention orders are issued and to make it even easier to get them will
simply become so to say a bureaucratic nightmare for the police. What is needed is to drastically
reduce the number of intervention orders so the police can manage them. Too often intervention
orders are obtained upon whimsy claims and it are those kind of intervention orders that end to
prevent the real needed intervention orders to be appropriately catered for.
The message is clear, address the basic underlying issues or you will just get an explosion of
people using ISIS as a pretext.
I look forwards to your detailed positive response.
40
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p17
26-2-2015

May Justice Always Prevail: Without Prejudice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

May Justice Always Prevail: Without Prejudice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

May Justice Always Prevail: Without Prejudice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. SYMON: By vice-regal appointment.

HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 9-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

HANSARD 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. PLAYFORD: What power has the Crown now?

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

In my view compulsory vaccination could be perceived as a social power to which the

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

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

You might also like