WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Her Majesty The Queen Buckingham Palace London SW1A 1AA

C/o info@balmoralcastle.com Cc: Mr Tony Abbott PM Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

28-2-2014

10

Ref: succession. Your Majesty, I understand from a media report with the heading Australia holding up new royal succession laws says UK Minister something that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST is puzzling to me. QUOITE

15

Australia holding up new royal succession laws says UK Minister

20
news.com.au 2 hours ago February 27, 2014 1:17PM AUSTRALIA is holding up changes to the royal succession laws that would end the practice where sons take precedence over daughters, a British government minister said today. The 16 Commonwealth realms which share the same royal family including Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Jamaica must all pass an identical law before the changes can come into effect, unless UK legislation covers it for them. QUEENSLAND HOLDS OUT ON ROYAL SUCCESSION NEW ZEALAND BEHIND CHANGES TO ROYAL SUCCESSION LAWS They have all done so except Australia, said Jim Wallace, the deputy lead er of the British parliaments upper House of Lords. The measures mean newborn male children would no longer overtake elder sisters in the line of succession. Commonwealth realms rushed to agree the changes after Prince William the elder son of Prince Charles and next in line to the throne after his father got married in April 2011. They were agreed in principle by prime ministers of the 16 countries at a Commonwealth summit in Perth, Australia on October 28, 2011.

25

30

35

The new laws will apply to any descendants of Charles Queen Elizabeth IIs eldest son born from that date onwards. They can only come into effect when all the realms have ratified it. Questioned in the House of Lords as to whether any realm might default on the Perth agreement, Wallace told peers: The intention is that when all 16 realms have agreed or put in place the necessary legislation there will be a simultaneous order to give effect in each of the realms. 28-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p1

All realms that took the view that legislation is required have passed the ne cessary legislation apart from Australia. He said the six Australian states would legislate first before Canberra does. To date, three states have enacted legislation, two have introduced legislation and one, South Australia, has yet to introduce legislation but it is in the middle of an election campaign, he added.

The law change must be unanimous and identical in each realm to avoid the possibility of ending up with different monarchs in different countries. In other changes, the new law would also state that anyone marrying a Roman Catholic no longer loses their place in the line of succession.

10

However, Roman Catholics themselves remain excluded the sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England. The new laws would also limit the number of those in the line needing the monarchs permission to marry to the six. http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/australia-holding-up-new-royal-succession-laws-saysuk-minister/story-fnisprwn-1226839494745

15

END QUOTE QUOITE

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.1900 (UK)

2 Act to extend to the Queens successors 20

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majestys heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
END QUOTE

25

30

As this is not part of the constitution itself but part of the preceding 8 parts then I view it is beyond the powers of the commonwealth of Australia and so also that of the states to have any say in to this. In my view What would be required is a constitution amendment act to amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). This part 2 is beyond the referendum powers of s128 and beyond any of the Parliaments (State/Federal) to interfere with this. While part 8 refer to the Commonwealth of Australia being deemed a self-governing colony, this was for purpose only for the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895 but not for other purposes. While the Westminster Act refers to the Commonwealth of Australia as a dominion this cannot be accepted as valid, as shown in the quotation below.
QUOITE

35

7 Repeal of Federal Council Act [see Note 4]

The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, is hereby repealed, but so as not to affect any laws passed by the Federal Council of Australasia and in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Clause 8 40
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 9 Any such law may be repealed as to any State by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or as to any colony not being a State by the Parliament thereof.

8 Application of Colonial Boundaries Act 45

After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act.
END QUOTE

50

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).28-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p2

10

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree. END QUOTE

15

20

Again, for the above I hold that the Westminster Act was never applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia as one cannot so to say chop and change the status of the political union to whatever may happened to suit someone. Likewise I hold that the Australian Act 1986 (UK and Cth) are therefore not valid. No parliament can oust a subsequent parliament from exercising legislative powers and therefore I view that the British parliament can amend the part 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as it may hold relevant. I do not accept in any event that any of the state parliaments can willy nilly on their own account accept something because as the framers of the Constitution made clear:
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. THYNNE: The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures , and the royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of such authority. END QUOTE HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution. END QUOTE

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Therefore if the British Parliament holds that the states have to agree to the precise terms of the amendment of part 2 then it must be by way of State(s) referendums as no Parliament has such powers. What however ought to be understood is that the British Parliament would have no legislative powers as to remove the British nationality of Australians because it is embedded in the constitution. Neither can a section 128 referendum achieve this.
28-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com p3

60

One cannot have a constitution of the British Parliament being applicable and at the same time the citizens subjected to this constitution and laws enacted within it not being British subjects. Australians are entitled to have their constitutional rights protected and recognised being British nationals as long as the British constitution remains applicable. http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html
QUOTE 4. And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at the time of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the [7-Coke-27 b] uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent cannot make him a subject to that Crown to which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto. END QUOTE

10

15

20

I am well aware there are people who misguided or otherwise prefer a republic, and politicians in particular like to grab more power but I view the constitution protect us against this, even so politicians may often disregard this protection rights.
.

25

30

While the Governor-General can provide within delegated powers Royal Assent upon Bills to have them become Acts nevertheless neither the Monarch, the Governor-General or for that anyone else can amend the part 9 of the constitution act but only by a successful s128 referendum. As such, I hold the constitution to be very important to protect us as much as possible against tyranny and dictatorship and so terrorism. The moment we were to abandon this constitution then all the legal principles embedded in this constitution may be gone forever. Hence the important to maintain it. Obviously I look forwards to an acknowledgement of my 22 February 201`4 correspondence to Your Majesty and a subsequent response upon the issues raised in that correspondence. And as the reported appointment of Mr peter Cosgrove is raised in this correspondence it is essential this issue is appropriately considered before the appointment, if at all, were to proceed to become effective. This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all issues/details. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

35

40

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(

Our name is our motto!)

45

28-2-2014 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

p4