1

2
3 20200129-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. ISSUE –
4 Re “Federal Bush Fire Task Force”
5
6 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
7
8 * Gerrit, what is the constitutionality of a “Federal Bush Fire Task Force”?
9
10 **#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, let us first look at what the constitution provides for as to armed
11 services.
12
13 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
14 QUOTE
15 119 Protection of States from invasion and violence
16 The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the
17 Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.
18 END QUOTE
19
20 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
21 Convention)
22 QUOTE. Mr. BAKER:
23 That the military and naval defence of Australia shall be intrusted to federal forces under
24 one command.
25 Of course that is a sine qua non; and I hope we shall not do this thing by halves. I hope we
26 shall not, as has been done in the United States, provide for a divided authority over any of
27 our forces, whether those forces consist of a standing army, of citizen troops, of militia,
28 or of any other description of force whatever.
29 END QUOTE
30
31 Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
32 QUOTE
33 let us set our face once and for ever against the creation of anything like a military despotism.
34 END QUOTE
35 And
36 Hansard 10-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 Our own police are quite sufficient for the preservation of order within.
39 END QUOTE
40 It is therefore very clear that you cannot have the soldiers carrying weapons entering State
41 territories if not invited by a State Government in regard of any “domestic dispute” which means
42 “civil unrest” not some matrimonial dispute between husband and wife.
43
44 However, we also require to consider the following:
45
46 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
47 QUOTE

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 29-1-2020 Page 1

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
 1 Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an annual
2 service.

3 Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?

4 Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.

5 Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from special
6 grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which we are
7 accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.

8 Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place
9 expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a
10 service.
11 END QUOTE
12
13 It is therefore very clear that the Framers of the Constitution very much were aware that the
14 Commonwealth could at times provide for special funding regarding bush fires. It is the only time
15 they debated the issue of bush fires throughout the years of conventions being held.
16
17 If you check out the “Commentaries of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia”
18 Sir Robert Garran (1867-1957) you find he never refers to “bush fire” issues as such.
19
20 Considering the Above I view that considering S101 Inter-State Commission dealing with
21 interstate matters, it would be well within the powers of the Federal Parliament to allocate funding
22 as to a “Federal Bush Fire Task Force” and State fire fighting forces.
23 In my view, while the constitution specifically prohibit the deployment of armed forces unless
24 requested by the State Government regarding “domestic disputes” this however must not be
25 misconstrued that this would prevent unarmed soldiers to participate in a “Federal Bush Fire
26 Task Force”. As such the concern of the Framers of the constitution was armed soldiers nilly
27 willy entering a State without consent by the relevant State Government. Not deployment for
28 peaceful issues.
29
30 * Don’t you already have armed soldiers in barracks in Australian states?
31
32 **#** That is different. Those barracks are constitutionally Commonwealth territories governed
33 by Commonwealth law. This is why for example I do not hold it appropriate to have a tunnel
34 through the grounds of Simpson Barracks in Watsonia, Victoria by the State Government. Neither
35 for the Federal Government to permit the cutting down of some reported 25,000 trees for this
36 project. Here we have State and Federal Governments making known private landholders must not
37 cut down trees, etc, only then themselves to do so on a massive scale.
38
39 * So, in your view the Inter-State Commission could without political interference make
40 decisions as to the allocation of bush fire funding that has been allocated by the Federal
41 Parliament by special Appropriation Bills?
42
43 **#** That is correct.
44
45 * And the Commonwealth could assist with its “Federal Bush Fire Task Force” in emergencies
46 provided the soldiers are not carrying any weapons?
47
48 **#** That is correct.
49
50 * You in the past made known that the Federal Government should ensure that the armed forces
51 have water bombing planes and not long thereafter Prime Minister Scott Morrison made known to
52 hire 4 planes. Does that satisfy you?
© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 29-1-2020 Page 2
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
 1
2 **#** In my view the armed forces should have its own water bombing planes. Further, in case of
3 bush fires the army operating as a “Federal Bush Fire Task Force” without weapons of war then
4 could use those places to fight bush fires anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia.
5
6 *. With or without the request of a State Government?
7
8 **#** Ordinary it would still require the relevant State Government to request the assistance of
9 the “Federal Bush Fire Task Force” but that is totally different then what Section 119 stands for.
10 However, if there is a bush fire that endangers Commonwealth property then I view the “Federal
11 Bush Fire Task Force” should be entitled to get into action even if no request was made. After
12 all, a bush fire that were to endanger a ammunition storage could be dangerous for others in
13 surrounding areas and then I view emergency powers to combat such nearby bushfire cannot be
14 left until some State Government might get around to seek assistance. Likewise, where there is a
15 bush fire that is likely to or is about to cross State borders. Then I view the “Federal Bush Fire
16 Task Force” must be deemed to be entitled to invoke inter-state powers to combat a bush fire.
17
18 *. Does the Governor-General have to authorize this?
19
20 **#** Let me quote the following:
21
22 HANSARD 10-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
23 QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-
24 Then, again, there is the prerogative right to declare war and peace, an adjunct of
25 which it is that the Queen herself, or her representative, where Her Majesty is not
26 present, holds that prerogative. No one would ever dream of saying that the Queen
27 would declare war or peace without the advice of a responsible Minister.
28 END QUOTE
29
30 HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
31 QUOTE
32 Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no desire to interfere
33 with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!
34 END QUOTE
35
36 Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
37 QUOTE
38 Clause 112-The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion, and, on the application of the
39 Executive Government of a state, against domestic violence.

40 Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I beg to move-

41 That the word "invasion" (line 2) be struck out, and the word "attack" substituted.

42 Why should the protection of the Commonwealth be confined only to invasion? We are not likely ever to be
43 invaded, but we are exceedingly likely to be attacked.

44 Mr. BARTON.-Any attack is an invasion in the sense in which the word is used in this clause.

45 Mr. GORDON.-The gunning by a cruiser standing off a city is not an invasion, but it is an attack.

46 Mr. BARTON.-It is an attack which is part of an invasion; if the attack succeeds invasion follows.

47 Mr. GORDON.-I think "attack" is very much better. Of course, if the word "invasion" covers the ground,
48 well and good; but while "attack" covers "invasion," does "invasion" cover "attack"? Originally, the
49 amendment I intended to move used both the words "attack" and "invasion."

50 Mr. REID.-You can repel an invasion 100 miles from the coast.
© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 29-1-2020 Page 3
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
 1 Mr. GORDON.-But how does the honorable member know that an invasion is intended?

2 [start page 692]

3 Mr. REID.-If there was a war between two countries, and a cruiser from the one country was
4 approaching the other, you would know that it was not on a visit of brotherly love.

5 Mr. GORDON.-They may not intend to invade the chances are that they do not intend to invade, but to
6 attack.

7 Mr. BARTON.-Do you think that the Commonwealth, if a hostile fleet appeared for the purpose of
8 attacking, and not invading, would keep the batteries silent and the Australian fleet at anchor?

9 Mr. GORDON.-Something may turn upon this. By this clause the Common-wealth is only bound to protect
10 every state against invasion. If the Commonwealth neglected its duty, and South Australia was invaded, South
11 Australia would have a claim against the Commonwealth. But, it appears to me, that it should have an equal
12 claim against the Commonwealth if it was simply attacked, and not invaded. However, if the leader of the
13 Convention thinks that "invasion" covers "attack," I am willing to leave the matter to the Drafting Committee,
14 but I have some doubt on the point.

15 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am perfectly satisfied that when the guns are booming there will
16 be no discussion about the meaning of the two words.

17 Mr. GORDON.-Ought the construction of this Act to be left until the guns are booming? I thought the
18 object was to prevent the guns booming at all.

19 Mr. HOLDER (South Australia).-I think there is something in the point raised by my honorable friend (Mr.
20 Gordon). We have previously used separately the terms "naval" and "military." Now, an attack would be naval,
21 while an invasion would be military.

22 The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) press his amendment?

23 Mr. GORDON.-No. If the leader of the Convention relies on his booming guns I am content.

24 The amendment was withdrawn.

25 END QUOTE
26
27 What this means and underlines is that for example when the Federal Government desires to go to
28 war against another country , such as it did with Iraq, then it must first obtain authorization from
29 the Governor-General by the publication in the Gazette of a DECLARATION OF WAR naming
30 “Iraq” as an enemy state. This never to my knowledge eventuated in 2003!
31 As such that invasion was unconstitutional and as such were war crimes, etc.
32
33 However, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear if guns are “booming” then no
34 DECLARATION OF WAR is needed as it is already an attack. Likewise, I view this legal
35 principle is to be considered regarding bush fires. If there is some bush fire no where near a border
36 and or Commonwealth property/territory then it is for the relevant State Government to seek
37 assistance of the “Federal Bush Fire Task Force”, however if there is an imminent danger to
38 Commonwealth property then I hold the Federal Government is entitled to deploy the “Federal
39 Bush Fire Task Force” to protect at the very least its own assets as well as the lives of those in
40 danger or likely danger.
41
42 *. From this, what really is needed is special legislation that soldiers can be deployed within the
43 operations of the “Federal Bush Fire Task Force”.
44
45 **#** Correct. I would however include that the Commonwealth could charge the cost or part
46 thereof for assisting a State (when requested to do so). This, as to avoid that a State is going to run
47 down its own firefighting equipment on the basis the Commonwealth will then provide for it.
48
© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 29-1-2020 Page 4
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
 1 *.And the Inter-State Commission is there to ensure funding is provided as it deems appropriate in
2 regard of bush firefighting not limited to funding the “Federal Bush Fire Task Force”.
3
4 **#** That is correct. The Section 101 Inter-State Commission was specifically created in the
5 constitution to prevent political interferences as ordinary eventuates when a Minister is trying to
6 pork barrel certain areas. The Inter-State Commission would rely upon experts who would be
7 more equipped to know what is needed in which area. In addition, the Commonwealth is limited
8 to provide laws that applies in a “UNIFORM” manner whereas the Inter-State Commission is
9 not bound by this but can decide funding to the needs of each particular State.
10
11 *.In your view this doesn’t require to amend the constitution to allow for a “Federal Bush Fire
12 Task Force”?
13
14 **#** No need for an amendment as the Framers of the Constitution clearly held funding
15 regarding bushfires would be appropriate!
16
17 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
18 QUOTE
19 Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?

20 Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the
21 funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.
22 END QUOTE
23
24 It must be very clear that where the Framers of the Constitution held that it would be appropriate
25 for an Appropriation Bills towards bush fires then this I view implies the Commonwealth has
26 legislative powers ordinary within its powers, as after all it at times may have to fight bush fires
27 within Commonwealth territories also.
28
29 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
30
31 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

32 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

33 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
34

© G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. 29-1-2020 Page 5

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