Page 1

1
2
3 Committee Secretary 9-12-2019
4 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
5 PO Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
6 Phone: +61 2 6277 3560, Fax: +61 2 6277 5794
7 legcon.sen@aph.gov.au
8 SUBMISSION- RESPONSE
9 Sir/Madam,
10 I have always been to call a spade a spade and not fear to do so. And I have at times
11 copped criticism for daring to do so but then would respond in kind. When it comes to a judicial
12 officer making an utter fool of himself then a successful appeal underlines his absurd conduct I
13 appealed again.
14 With this committee however it seems that while it is supposed to be about NATIONHOOD, etc,
15 it seems to me that committee members have somehow decided that my Submissions are to be
16 deemed correspondence. Not relevant to NATIONHOOD, etc. Well any committee member who
17 has that view, even so claiming to be better in the usage of the English Language then what I
18 posess may just have to go back to get some basic education as to what NATIONHOOD actually
19 stands for.
20 One cannot deal with NATIONHOOD if one cannot grasp the basics of our constitution.
21
22 The so called intelligence, or the lack thereof, regarding a Member of Parliament might be
23 displayed by the following article:
24 http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/revealed-radical-plan-to-dump-the-royals-without-a-referendum-and-it-
25 could-make-the-queen-our-last-monarch/ar-BBXV09b?li=AAgfLCP&OCID=AVRES000
26 REVEALED: Radical plan to dump the royals WITHOUT a referendum - and it could
27 make the Queen our last monarch
28
29 In regard of which I posted on 8-12-2019 the following:
30 QUOTE POST
31 I am neither a monarchist or a republican but a CONSTITUTIONALIST. Recently the
32 Senate committee into nationhood denied my submission to be accepted as a SUBMISSION
33 and this likely was that I made clear that our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
34 1900 (UK) doesn’t allow the Commonwealth of Australia to become an independent nation.
35 HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
36 Australasian Convention)
37 QUOTE
38 Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
42 QUOTE
43 Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
44 In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
45 Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
9-12-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 2

1 and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
2 application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
3 intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to
4 create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make
5 provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this
6 political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is
7 to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the
8 slightest degree.
9 END QUOTE
10
11 Therefore, it is beyond our constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia to become a
12 republic. Indeed those politicians to promote this I view are committing TREASON against
13 the very electors who placed them in the Parliament.
14
15 Not even a referendum can change this as it would be beyond the provisions of s128 to alter
16 the previous parts 8 of the Act.
17 END QUOTE POST
18
19 As far as I am concerned any Member of Parliament who seeks to undermine the embedded legal
20 principles of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is a TRAITOR and
21 should be ousted from Federal Parliament. Members of Parliament are not elected to defy the
22 will of the people! They are there for no other purpose but to serve the electorate. There is no
23 such thing as Members of Parliament to overrule the constitution and/or it’s embedded legal
24 principles. I am proud upon my self-confessed Crummy English, this as at least I made the effort
25 to learn what the constitution actually stands for.
26 I have not hesitate to front the challenge by the Commonwealth to litigate against me regarding
27 FAILURE TO VOTE and comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth on numerous
28 constitutional grounds, such as that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. As such, before any
29 Member of Parliament seeks to claim to be better then I am then this person better understands
30 that even being a Rhodes Scholar doesn’t mean you are any better then an ordinary person.
31 Indeed I often commented to opponent lawyers after I defeated them in litigation it is not how
32 much you know but that you know what you need to know for the relevant case.
33 This also applies to committee members. If a Committee member doesn’t grasp what the true
34 meaning and application of our constitution stands for then such a committee member should not
35 just be ashamed but should resign his/her seat in the parliament for being grossly incompetent to
36 appropriately represent the electorate (constituents).
37 After all if you cannot understand/comprehend the rules governing Australia law then how on
38 earth can you then be a law maker and a committee member, I wonder.
39 .
40 I have often come across lawyers/judges who seemed to have some form of self applied dyslexia.
41 The are bragging about how well educated they are in particular in the English language and yet
42 turn out to be more like zombies and parrots repeating what they were brainwashes with then to
43 actually be able to think freely and understand/comprehend what the true meaning and
44 application is really about.
45 .
46 Any committee member who read my original submission of 10 September 2019 in my view
47 would be utterly brain-dead if that person couldn’t grasp that within our constitution there is no
48 such thing as any provision to get rid of the monarchy and become a republic.
49 Where in the constitution does it shows that politicians can without the consent of the people
50 interfere with the true meaning and application of the constitution I ask.
51 Section 128 is one for the electors and even that cannot be used to get rid of the monarchy.
52 .

9-12-2019 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 3

1 The Act that was given royal assent in 1900 only has the last part relating to our constitution and
2 it is only this part that can be amended with Section 128 referendum.
3 The monarchy is beyond the ability of Section 128 to interfere with and politicians who are
4 claiming they can themselves get rid of the monarchy I view are TRAITORS.
5 “NATIONHOOD” is not something that means anyone can disregard the true meaning and
6 application of the constitution. After all, if politicians claim they can do so then anyone else can
7 do so regardless of what purported “NATIONHOOD” one may claim to exist.
8 “NATIONHOOD” can only exist if those who are to serve within constitutional context are
9 doing so. Why should anyone respect whatever alternative constitution anyone may device if
10 politicians show disrespect for the constitution we currently have? After all, if you can disrespect
11 the current constitution then anyone else can disrespect any alternative constitution that might be
12 put in place.
13 .
14 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
15 QUOTE
16 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
17 people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
18 for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
19 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
20 Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
21 charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 It is not a constitution that politicians can disregard because they are elected but only because the
25 constitution provides for this. To therefore blatantly act in violation or to promote violation of
26 the constitution means that such politicians is grossly incompetent to represent his/her
27 constituents.
28
29 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
32 END QUOTE
33
34 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
35 Australasian Convention)
36 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
37 The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
38 END QUOTE
39
40 I do not request but DEMAND that the committee conduct matters within constitutional context
41 and not despite of it.
42
43 If within proper legal manner any constitution existed that were to be without a monarchy or
44 whatever then well I as a CONSTITUTIONALIST am bound by that. I am not concerned about
45 if a constitution is providing for a monarchy, republic or whatever as my issue is whatever the
46 constitution provides for. And this I view any Member of Parliament who took up a seat in the
47 Parliament is bound to do so likewise.
48 .
49 Any committee member who so to say railroaded my submission I view is causing a disgrace to
50 the entire committee because it shows the committee lacks the ability to consider all relevant
51 details.
52 .
53 “NATIONHOOD” IS NOT MERELY SOME TERM THAT IS WHATEVER EVERY
54 PERSON MAY LIKE TO MAKE IT OUT TO BE, IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH
55 WHATEVER THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR.
9-12-2019 Page 3 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 4

1 Any Member of Parliament is entitled as a private person to have his/her own views, as much as
2 I am entitled upon my own, however when acting as a representative of the people in the
3 Parliament then such a person is obligated and bound to act within the true meaning and
4 application of the constitution and not despite of it.
5 .
6 In my view the only way to get rid of the monarchy would be to get rid of the Commonwealth of
7 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and in my view this would be very unwise because as I
8 understand it the moment the Commonwealth of Australia is no more under the current
9 constitution then the federation may no longer exist. Each state may desire to go its own way.
10
11 As I understand it the former Yugoslavia is a clear example where there can be a break up what
12 was once a united nation. Indeed, this is what I understand President Vladimir Putin relied upon
13 when annexing Crimea. The Ukraine constitution specifically denied any foreign basis but
14 politicians nevertheless allowed Russian naval base to be in Crimea. Well now they lost it
15 altogether.
16 If the Commonwealth of Australia were to break up in regard of the current federation then
17 nothing would stop one or more states to join some foreign power.
18 We have already witnessed how weak the Federal government is for example where the Premier
19 of Victoria is dealing with foreign powers despite this being prohibited by our constitution
20 because of “EXTERNAL POWERS” being within federal powers.
21 Any politicians who claims that there is concurrent legislative powers of the States with the
22 Federal government better learns what the true meaning and application of the constitution really
23 is about!
24
25 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
26 QUOTE
27 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
28 legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE
33 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
34 nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.

35 Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

36 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
37 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
38 all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
39 END QUOTE
40
41 It seems to me that we have grossly incompetent Members of Parliament who cannot even grasp
42 the basic of our constitution and yet seem to or proposed to decide what “NATIONHOOD” etc
43 stands for. It in my view would be utter and gross stupidity to disregard my submission but then
44 again if I am dealing with people who lack any proper education in what the true meaning and
45 application of our actually stands for well then that is something they eventually may have to
46 deal with. After all, if you ignore the true meaning and application of the constitution, our
47 principle law, then why should anyone else respect whatever you are deciding?
48 All you will achieve is instability because of blatant incompetence/ignorance to reality.
49 Anyone who has the perception that “CITIZENSHIP” is some Australian nationality proves to
50 me to be more like a brainwashed person. After all, if you do not understand/comprehend what
51 constitutionally CITIZENSHIP stands for then I view you are grossly incompetent to deal with
52 matters such as “NATIONHOOD”.
9-12-2019 Page 4 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 5

1 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

2 QUOTE
3 Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
4 operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
5 citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
6 state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
7 citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
8 be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
9 citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
10 citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
11 of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
12 But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
13 who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
14 expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
15 dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
16 Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision
17 and clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want
18 to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it,
19 the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate
20 such a thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year
21 should be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.

22 Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

23 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
24 Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
25 citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
26 restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
27 disabilities, as aliens, and so on.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.
32 If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
33 Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
34 legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
35 to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
36 Parliament."
37 END QUOTE
38
39 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
40 QUOTE
41 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
42 terms that are just to both.

43 Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

44 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is
45 required at all; it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet
46 together, and, without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to
47 draw the very life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment,
48 which would give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most
49 important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters
50 that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
51 END QUOTE
52
53 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
54 QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
55 No one is more in favour of that than I am. But, at the same time, it is said-"Let the Houses of
56 Parliament act capriciously and variously from day to day-allow this 'tacking' to go on if the Houses
9-12-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
 Page 6

1 choose to agree to it-let the Houses do one thing one day and another the next, and do not bother about
2 altering the Constitution, but trust the Parliament." Of course; but Parliament must only be trusted
3 when it is within the Constitution. The Senate of to-day and the House of Representatives must not be
4 put in a position superior to the Constitution.
5 END QUOTE
6
7 It seems to me the committee should reconsider its 2 December 2019 decision and accept my
8 submission(s) to be exactly that. After all it goes to the very issue of NATIONHOOD.
9 Tenants of a building may desire to change their contracts with the homeowner but they cannot
10 overrule the homeowner merely because they have some obsession wanting to do so. Any
11 alternative contract they may agree to between themselves without the consent of the owner
12 would be utterly invalid in law. Likewise so with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
13 Act 1900 (UK) it is the property of We, the people!
14
15 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
16 QUOTE
17 Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
18 the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
19 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
20 are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
21 END QUOTE
22
23 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
24 QUOTE
25 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
26 terms that are just to both.
27 END QUOTE
28
29 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
30 QUOTE
31 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of
32 the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under
33 it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-
34 the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
35 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
36 this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
37 degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
38 guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the
39 court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as
40 will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
41 constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere
42 of the Commonwealth.
43 END QUOTE
44
45 Parliament and so parliamentarian committees can only operate within constitutional context and
46 not despite of this and as such I expect no less then that any committee acts in a competent
47 manner to uphold the true meaning and application of the constitution.
48
49 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
50 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

51 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

52 (Our name is our motto!)

9-12-2019 Page 6 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati