ISSUE: 20180217- Re Should the purported Aboriginal flag be banned, etc, & the constitution

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

I in 2004 was asked by Mr Patrick Byrt, lawyer with South Australian Legal Aid Service, if I
could design a flag that would relate to people of all colour and background for Australian unity.
Below is the final product that was achieved on 25 October 2004 in consultation /collaboration
with Mr Patrick Byrt QC. The flag remains to be for usage for the peace, order and good
government for all Australians, regardless of their colour of skin.

Designed 25-10-2004 to represent all people!

This design prominently then featured on my letterheads as well as on my websites.
Over the decades I have been subjected, so to say, of having shoved down my throat about
victimisation of Aboriginals in many ways. Victimology seems to be practiced by Aboriginals
and those of the bleeding heart brigade to what I view extort land rights and lots of monies from
others as some blame game no matter of children were neglected and even murdered by their ow.
Just blame non-Aboriginals of this.
The more Aboriginals were playing the victim game the more I became interested in what really
was the history of what is no known as the commonwealth of Australia.
I understand that it tells a story of Aboriginals (Austrasloids) of committing genocide, mass
murder, extermination or whatever it may be deemed to be of the Mimi, Negritos and other
earlier inhabitants to oust them from their lands. And we seem to rewards this murderous conduct
by feeling sorry for the Aboriginals, reward them with land rights of stolen land, etc?
Where is the apology by Aboriginals regarding what they did against the Mimi’s, Negritos and
others? Why should anyone who still has some common decency reward Aboriginals who I
understood were to some degree a bunch of mass murders with the honour to be recognised in
the constitution as the first Australians where really it would be to recognise, as I view it, the first
Australian mass murderers.
In my view the purported Aboriginal flag should be banned from all and any government
building/ monument/bridge, etc. As I understand it this flag was to represent the Aboriginals but
not with their consent, and hold on neither Torres Strait Islanders.
The Aboriginals have been campaigning against the Australia Flag to include the British colours
and that led to me to consider why shouldn’t the so called Aboriginal flag not be banned where I
view it represent genocide, mass murder, extermination, fraud, etc?
p1 17-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
We must not recognise a purported flag that never was really accepted by Aboriginals prior to the
settling by Captain Cooke. Indeed, as I understand it Aboriginals then were mere savages doing
nothing to cultivate the land to standards that ordinary landholders would do, and having been
the product of genocide, mass murder, extermination, etc.
For the Mimi, the Negritos and other earlier settlers descendants the so called Aboriginal flag
might well be like the Nazi flag.
I also wish to state that I view that the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is
unconstitutional as it conflict with the intentions of the framers of the constitution regarding
ss51(xxv i).
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
END QUOTE
As such KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia
in my view was wrongly decided because you cannot via backdoor manner obtain legislative
powers that are directly prohibited. External Affair never could be used to gain legislative
powers for internal matters as then any Government could enter into treaties such as about
specific State legislative powers and then slowly extinguish State legislative powers.
Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
While there are Aboriginals who claim Australia Day is an Invasion Day, reality as I understand
is that it rather might have been Liberation Day for those the Aboriginals were persecuting, such
as the Mimi’s. It also should be understood that various Aboriginals were convicted of murder in
the early days of settlement, and as such to argue that aboriginals were innocent of any
wrongdoing or merely were seeking to pursue their rights I view is utter and sheer nonsense and
is an attempt to turn vicious murderers in so to say saints.
The purported Aboriginal flag never was one recognised by the many Aboriginal tribes at the
time of Captain Cooke setting food in what is now Commonwealth of Australia and neither so at
the time of federation.
Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. DIBBS:
We, in Australia-federated Australia, I may take it, because the matter is one which applies to the
whole-have no enemies 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.
END QUOTE
As such the federation was based upon there not being any land rights claims within Australia.
Whatever the High Court of Australia may have decided as to MABP in regard of Torres strait
Islanders never should have been applied to the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole, this
because the court didn’t provide for anyone to intervene to speak for and on behalf of ordinary
Australians. Neither do I accept the HCA could make a ruling contrary to the legal principles
embedded in the constitution. Again, where was the apology by Aboriginals to the Mimi’s,
Negritos and others? Where is the restitution by Aboriginals to the Mimi’s, Negritos and others?
Let us be very clear about it that current Aboriginals were not living at the time Captain Cooke
arrived in what is now Commonwealth of Australia. Aboriginals are making their claim against
current Australians. They so to say hold current taxpayers, etc, accountable for their claims what

p2 17-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
eventuated more than 200 years ago, yet they do not likewise accept accountability,
responsibility and acknowledgement of any evil deeds done by their own forefathers.
We often are told that the misery of many Aboriginals such as youth in detention, dunks, children
neglect, etc, is somehow all the fault of non-Aboriginals. Yet, if one was to consider history such
as a South Australian Governor Nichols of Aboriginal descent, many lawyers, doctors, etc, being
of Aboriginal descent then obviously there are Aboriginals who instead of winging and feeling
sorry for themselves did as like any other Australia is expected to do and that is to do their best to
achieve something in life.
We can only be a multinational society/community if we respect each other customs and
traditions but do not create a parallel society of enclaves, but assimilate to be one people.
We should in my view ban the purported Aboriginal flag from being used on government
buildings, etc, as it in my view is a flag for division of the people.
Because of the amendment of the 1967 referendum regarding ss51(xxvi) I view the Victorian
Koori Court is unconstitutional this as it is to provide special legislation for Aboriginals beyond
the state’s legislative powers. Unless special legislation is applied specifically against
Aboriginals they must be subjected to all ordinary laws applicable against anyone else. It means
if a person on the dole is required to follow certain rules then those of Aboriginal descent should
be compelled to do so likewise.
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is
co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
Therefore, where the Commonwealth has legislated as to welfare cards in regard of Aboriginals
then all Aboriginals lose their citizenship status and so their franchise and right to be a member
of Federal Parliament!
Hansard 31-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the commonwealth, or
any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised only by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject to the
provisions of this constitution.
We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of the
commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in requesting
such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a parliament
beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the commonwealth
exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they exercise those
powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to make laws to
the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when the federal
parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that the powers of the
states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature chooses to exercise its
functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with the existing rights of
states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some exclusive powers to
the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people of any race with
respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the general community; but so
that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the aboriginal native race in Australia
and the Maori race in New Zealand.
END QUOTE

p3 17-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

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
Therefore the citizenship fiasco before the High Court of Australia in my view is precisely so.
The court has no judicial powers to directly/indirectly amend the true meaning and application of
the constitution. I did on 4 December 2002 obtain a court order in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka in
which I challenged the validity of the purported Australian Citizenship Act1948. This court order
is still outstanding. As such unless and until if ever at all the court disposed of my legal challenge
the purported Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is and remains to be NULL AND VOID (Ultra
Vires) Ab Initio.
Without the States having legislation as to citizenship it means that technically no one can be a
citizen, and neither so electors.
QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Attorney General 19-11-2002
Victoria
Fax 9651 0577 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
URGENT
Sir/Madam
Since 27-9-2002 I sought clarification about what, if any State citizenship I have as to be able to
obtain Australian citizenship, yet, in the recent 18 November 2002 response it was stated;

“As explained in my previous letter, citizenship is a matter for the Commonwealth,

not the States. You indicated that you were naturalized in 1994. As result of that, you
are an Australian citizen.”
This utter ridiculous response was provided by RUVANI WICKS, Assistant Director, Civil Branch of the
Department of Justice.

Edmund Barton (later becoming the first Prime Minister of Australia and thereafter a judge of the High Court of
Australia) made very clear during the convention, that if it isn’t in the Constitution, then the Commonwealth had
no legislative powers.

RUVANI WICKS refers me to the Commonwealth Government to sort out matters, however this is clearly
unacceptable, this, as the State of Victoria and not the Commonwealth deals or must deal with State Citizenship!

p4 17-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Unless you can point out when there was a reference of legislative powers from the State of Victoria to the
Commonwealth approved within Section 128 of the Commonwealth constitution, I view, there never was and
still is no constitutional legislative powers by the Commonwealth to determine State or any other citizenship!

At most, the Commonwealth, could determine “citizenship” as the local law for the Act and Northern Territory
through the parliaments governing those Territories (being Quasi States) as they are not limited to constitutional
provisions, however there never was any Constitutional powers for the Commonwealth to grant citizenship to
any resident of a State, neither determine citizenship of a citizen of a State!

If your Department nevertheless maintains that the Commonwealth has the legislative powers to determine
citizenship of residents of the State of Victoria then please do set out in which Constitutional manner the
Commonwealth had this power from on set, if any, and/or how it obtained this legislative power since the
formation of the Commonwealth!

If anything, the Department of justice ought to be well aware that unless it is done lawfully it is ULTRA VIRES!
END QUOTE 19-11-2002 correspondence to Victorian Attorney-General
No further reply was received by me upon this.
See also my 30 September 2003 published book titled;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
I am not suggesting Aboriginals who desire to use their so called Aboriginal flag cannot use it, as
after all they are entitled to political liberty, but it is another thing to have such a purported flag
on government and other buildings.
Native Australians are those who are born within the Commonwealth of Australia, regardless of
the colour of skin,
Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public life. I am an
Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I am associated assume a
position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE
William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union official and labour
movement politician for Victoria, Australia.
Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a bootmaker.
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE
Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional Convention (1897–98)
that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901. His support of Federation was over the
objections of many in the labour movement, and served to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill
had been "wholly shaped in a conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
END QUOTE
Aboriginals never were one people using one language neither one customs/traditions, etc, and
while they may be proud upon some of their history other parts such as the vicious murders I
understand they were involved in certainly cannot be ignored. In my view they never were the
First Australians and it is long overdue they accept reality, and learn to live in harmony with
other Australians. Only then can future conflicts be avoided. Any proposed amendment to the
constitution to purport that Aboriginals were the first Australians in my view would only ignore
further and additional problems, and create more divisions then already existing.
DISCLOSURE: One of my daughter’s first (female) cousins was married to an Aboriginal, and
they Aboriginal and they had 5 half cast children.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p5 17-2-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati